Cited by 65Hernia repair and managementSurgical site infection preventionAbdominal Surgery and Complications

Long-term outcomes (>5-year follow-up) with porcine acellular dermal matrix (Permacol™) in incisional hernias at risk for infection

Abdelfatah, M. M., Rostambeigi, N., Podgaetz, E., Sarr, M. G.·2015·Hernia

Abstract

Purpose We reviewed retrospectively all patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction using porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM) from 2004 to 2008 with follow-up assessment in 2012. Technique, short-term (infection, seroma, wound dehiscence), and long-term (mesh infection, recurrence) complications, and hernia recurrences were evaluated by physician examination ≥5 years postoperatively. Results 56 patients at high risk for infection had elective operation; nine had non-elective operation for complications of prior incisional hernia/hernia repair. Operations were clean, clean-contaminated, contaminated, or grossly infected in 49, 32, 12, and 6%, respectively. Techniques of repair included 10 onlay (six reinforced primary closures, four bridging patches), 47 sublay (20 reinforced primary closures, 27 bridging patches), six inlay, and two sandwich (sublay and onlay). Early complications (≤30 days postoperatively) occurred in 19 of the 65 patients (29%), including two prosthetic dehiscences from fascial attachment, 13 wound infections, and 4 seromas. After a mean follow-up of ≥5 years in 59 of 65 patients, physician-reported incidences of infection requiring removal of mesh or hernia recurrence were 25 and 66%, respectively. Hernia recurrence occurred in 12 of 26 (46%) patients with a reinforced repair and 27 of 33 (82%) with patched repairs. Mesh infection occurred in 7 of 24 patients with sublay patch and in 4 of 19 sublay reinforcement. The greatest recurrence rate was in contaminated (71%) and grossly infected wounds (100%), while recurrence rate was 63% in clean and 63% in clean-contaminated wounds. Conclusions At ≥5 years of follow-up, use of PADM as a bioprosthesis in ventral hernia in high-risk patients is unreliable as a definitive repair in the majority of patients, but may provide satisfactory outcomes in some patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10029-013-1165-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abdelfatah, M. M., Rostambeigi, N., Podgaetz, E., & Sarr, M. G.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Sarr, M. G.
Venue
Hernia
Published
2013-10-16
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
135-140
ISSN
  • 1248-9204 (ISSN-L)
  • 1265-4906
OpenAlex
W1993745239
Cited by
65
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hernia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
Keywords
porcine acellular dermal matrix, Permacol, incisional hernia, abdominal wall reconstruction, mesh infection, hernia recurrence, wound infection, seroma, wound dehiscence, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Collagen, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hernia, Ventral, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Surgical Wound Infection, Treatment Outcome, Prosthesis Implantation, Abdominal Wall, Herniorrhaphy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review