Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2014
Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh(®)) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gurrado A, Franco I F, Lissidini G, Greco G, De Fazio M, Pasculli A, Girardi A, Piccinni G, Memeo V, Testini M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This retrospective comparative study analyzes the outcome of patients affected by incisional hernia in potentially contaminated or contaminated field, treated by three operative techniques.
METHODS: 152 patients (62 M:90 F; mean age 65 ± 14 years) underwent incisional hernia repair (January 2002-January 2012) in complicated settings. Criteria of inclusion in the study were represented by the following causes of admission: mesh rejection/infection, obstruction without gangrene but with possible peritoneal bacterial translocation, obstruction with gangrene, enterocutaneous fistula or simultaneous presence of ileo- or colostomy. The patients were divided into three groups: A (n = 76), treated with primary closure technique; B and C (n = 38 each), with reinforcement by synthetic or pericardium bovine mesh (Tutomesh(®)), respectively. The prosthetic groups were divided into Onlay and Sublay subgroups.
RESULTS: Significant decreases in C vs A were observed for wound infection (3 vs 37%) and recurrence (0 vs 14%), and in C vs B for wound infection (3 vs 53%), seroma (0 vs 34%) and recurrence (0 vs 16%). Patients with concomitant bowel resection (BR) (43%) showed (all P < 0.05) an increase of overall morbidity (55 vs 33%) and wound infection rate (42 vs 24%) compared to cases without BR. Morbidity presented no significant differences in C-Onlay or Sublay subgroups. B-Sublay subgroup has (all P < 0.05) lower overall morbidity (20 vs 75%), wound infection (10 vs 68%) and seroma (0 vs 46%) than B-Onlay.
CONCLUSIONS: The pericardium bovine patch seems to be safe and effective to successfully repair ventral hernia in potentially contaminated operative fields, especially in association with bowel resection.
METHODS: 152 patients (62 M:90 F; mean age 65 ± 14 years) underwent incisional hernia repair (January 2002-January 2012) in complicated settings. Criteria of inclusion in the study were represented by the following causes of admission: mesh rejection/infection, obstruction without gangrene but with possible peritoneal bacterial translocation, obstruction with gangrene, enterocutaneous fistula or simultaneous presence of ileo- or colostomy. The patients were divided into three groups: A (n = 76), treated with primary closure technique; B and C (n = 38 each), with reinforcement by synthetic or pericardium bovine mesh (Tutomesh(®)), respectively. The prosthetic groups were divided into Onlay and Sublay subgroups.
RESULTS: Significant decreases in C vs A were observed for wound infection (3 vs 37%) and recurrence (0 vs 14%), and in C vs B for wound infection (3 vs 53%), seroma (0 vs 34%) and recurrence (0 vs 16%). Patients with concomitant bowel resection (BR) (43%) showed (all P < 0.05) an increase of overall morbidity (55 vs 33%) and wound infection rate (42 vs 24%) compared to cases without BR. Morbidity presented no significant differences in C-Onlay or Sublay subgroups. B-Sublay subgroup has (all P < 0.05) lower overall morbidity (20 vs 75%), wound infection (10 vs 68%) and seroma (0 vs 46%) than B-Onlay.
CONCLUSIONS: The pericardium bovine patch seems to be safe and effective to successfully repair ventral hernia in potentially contaminated operative fields, especially in association with bowel resection.