Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Resorbable Synthetic Onlay and Biologic Intraperitoneal Mesh for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A 2‐Year Match‐Paired Analysis

Othman, Sammy, Christopher, Adrienne, Patel, Viren, Jia, Hanna, Mellia, Joseph A., Kovach, Stephen J., Fischer, John P.·2022·Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
DOI 10.1097/prs.0000000000009021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Abdominal wall reconstruction persists as a challenging surgical issue with a multitude of management strategies available. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of resorbable synthetic mesh onlay plane against biologic mesh in the intraperitoneal plane. Methods: A single-center, two-surgeon, 5-year retrospective review (2014 to 2019) was performed examining subjects who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction in the onlay plane with resorbable synthetic mesh or in the intraperitoneal plane with biologic mesh. A matched paired analysis was conducted. Data examining demographic characteristics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and costs were analyzed. Results: Eighty-eight subjects (44 per group) were identified (median follow-up, 24.5 months). The mean age was 57.7 years, with a mean body mass index of 30.4 kg/m 2. The average defect size was 292 ± 237 cm 2, with most wounds being clean-contaminated (48.9 percent) and 55 percent having failed prior repair. Resorbable synthetic mesh onlay subjects were significantly less likely (4.5 percent) to experience recurrence compared to biologic intraperitoneal mesh subjects (22.7 percent; p < 0.026). In addition, mesh onlay suffered fewer postoperative surgical-site occurrences (18.2 percent versus 40.9 percent; p < 0.019) and required fewer procedural interventions (11.4 percent versus 36.4 percent; p < 0.011), and was also associated with significantly lower total costs ($16,658 ± $14,930) compared to biologic intraperitoneal mesh ($27,645 ± $16,864; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Abdominal wall reconstruction remains an evolving field, with various techniques available for treatment. When faced with hernia repair, resorbable synthetic mesh in the onlay plane may be preferable to biologic mesh placed in the intraperitoneal plane because of lower long-term recurrence rates, surgical-site complications, and costs. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/prs.0000000000009021

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Bosanquet, 2015, Systematic review and meta-regression of factors affecting midline incisional hernia rates: Analysis of 14,618 patients., PLoS One, 10, e0138745, 10.1371/journal.pone.0138745 · DOI
  2. Poulose, 2012, Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: Making the case for hernia research., Hernia, 16, 179, 10.1007/s10029-011-0879-9 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Sosin, 2014, A patient-centered appraisal of outcomes following abdominal wall reconstruction: A systematic review of the current literature., Plast Reconstr Surg, 133, 408, 10.1097/01.prs.0000436860.47774.eb · DOI
  4. Gillion, 2016, The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: A multicentric cost analysis., Hernia, 20, 819, 10.1007/s10029-016-1480-z · DOI
  5. Basta, 2016, Mortality after inpatient open ventral hernia repair: Developing a risk stratification tool based on 55,760 operations., Am J Surg, 211, 1047, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.009 · DOI
  6. Khansa, 2019, The 4 principles of complex abdominal wall reconstruction., Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 7, e2549, 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002549 · DOI
  7. Slater, 2014, Criteria for definition of a complex abdominal wall hernia., Hernia, 18, 7, 10.1007/s10029-013-1168-6 · DOI
  8. Carney, 2018, Comparative effectiveness of retromuscular and intraperitoneal repair: What is the value of posterior sheath reconstruction?, Plast Reconstr Surg, 141, 733e, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004298 · DOI
  9. Sosin, 2018, The perfect plane: A systematic review of mesh location and outcomes, update 2018., Plast Reconstr Surg, 142, 107S, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004864 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Timmermans, 2014, Meta-analysis of sublay versus onlay mesh repair in incisional hernia surgery., Am J Surg, 207, 980, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.08.030 · DOI
  11. Holihan, 2016, Mesh location in open ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and network meta-analysis., World J Surg, 40, 89, 10.1007/s00268-015-3252-9 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Fafaj, 2020, Intraperitoneal versus retromuscular mesh placement for open incisional hernias: An analysis of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative., Br J Surg, 107, 1123, 10.1002/bjs.11560 · DOI
  13. Haskins, 2017, Onlay with adhesive use compared with sublay mesh placement in ventral hernia repair: Was Chevrel right? An Americas Hernia Society quality collaborative analysis., J Am Coll Surg, 224, 962, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.01.048 · DOI
  14. Rosen, 2013, A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh., Ann Surg, 257, 991, 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182849871 · DOI
  15. Cavallaro, 2010, Use of biological meshes for abdominal wall reconstruction in highly contaminated fields., World J Gastroenterol, 16, 1928, 10.3748/wjg.v16.i15.1928 · DOI
  16. Xu, 2008, Host response to human acellular dermal matrix transplantation in a primate model of abdominal wall repair., Tissue Eng Part A, 14, 2009, 10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0316 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Huntington, 2016, Biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: Outcomes, recurrence, and charge analysis., Surgery, 160, 1517, 10.1016/j.surg.2016.07.008 · DOI
  18. Köckerling, 2018, Onlay technique in incisional hernia repair: A systematic review., Front Surg, 5, 71, 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00071 · DOI
  19. Buell, 2017, Initial experience with biologic polymer scaffold (poly-4-hydroxybuturate) in complex abdominal wall reconstruction., Ann Surg, 266, 185, 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001916 · DOI
  20. Levy, 2021, Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (Phasix) mesh onlay in complex abdominal wall repair., Surg Endosc, 35, 2049, 10.1007/s00464-020-07601-9 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Messa, 2019, When the mesh goes away: An analysis of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh for complex hernia repair., Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 7, e2576, 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002576 · DOI
  22. Breuing, 2010, Incisional ventral hernias: Review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair., Surgery, 148, 544, 10.1016/j.surg.2010.01.008 · DOI
  23. Byrnes, 2020, The “corset repair” for complex hernia: A proof-of-concept report of an innovative approach., Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 8, e3308, 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003308 · DOI
  24. Garvey, 2014, Outcomes of abdominal wall reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix are not affected by wound contamination., J Am Coll Surg, 219, 853, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.06.021 · DOI
  25. Asaad, Acellular dermal matrix provides durable long-term outcomes in abdominal wall reconstruction: A study of patients with over 60 months of follow-up., Ann Surg
  26. Byrnes, 2011, Repair of high-risk incisional hernias and traumatic abdominal wall defects with porcine mesh., Am Surg, 77, 144, 10.1177/000313481107700210 · DOI
  27. Itani, 2012, Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: The RICH Study., Surgery, 152, 498, 10.1016/j.surg.2012.04.008 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Roth, 2018, Prospective evaluation of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in CDC class I/high-risk ventral and incisional hernia repair: 18-month follow-up., Surg Endosc, 32, 1929, 10.1007/s00464-017-5886-1 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Pakula, 2020, Outcomes of open complex ventral hernia repairs with retromuscular placement of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate bioabsorbable mesh., Surg Innov, 27, 32, 10.1177/1553350619881066 · DOI
  30. Plymale, 2018, Ventral hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh., Surg Endosc, 32, 1689, 10.1007/s00464-017-5848-7 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Mellia, 2020, Outcomes of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and pooled analysis., Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 8, e3158, 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003158 · DOI
  32. Khansa, 2018, Management of skin and subcutaneous tissue in complex open abdominal wall reconstruction., Hernia, 22, 293, 10.1007/s10029-017-1662-3 · DOI
  33. Janis, 2012, Use of progressive tension sutures in components separation: Merging cosmetic surgery techniques with reconstructive surgery outcomes., Plast Reconstr Surg, 130, 851, 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318262f1fd · DOI
  34. Janis, 2016, Strategies for postoperative seroma prevention: A systematic review., Plast Reconstr Surg, 138, 240, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002245 · DOI
  35. Khansa, 2018, Optimal use of surgical drains: Evidence-based strategies., Plast Reconstr Surg, 141, 1542, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004413 · DOI
  36. Carbonell Tatay, 2009, New surgical technique in complex incisional hernias: Component Separation Technique (CST) with prosthesis and new muscle insertions (in Spanish)., Cir Esp, 86, 87, 10.1016/j.ciresp.2009.03.015 · DOI
  37. Torregrosa-Gallud, 2017, Modified components separation technique: Experience treating large, complex ventral hernias at a university hospital., Hernia, 21, 601, 10.1007/s10029-017-1619-6 · DOI
  38. Kohler, 2019, Effectiveness of prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh implantation for prevention of incisional hernia in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery: A randomized clinical trial., JAMA Surg, 154, 109, 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4221 · DOI
  39. Deeken, 2013, Characterization of the mechanical strength, resorption properties, and histologic characteristics of a fully absorbable material (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-PHASIX mesh) in a porcine model of hernia repair., ISRN Surg, 2013, 238067, 10.1155/2013/238067 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Aydinuraz, 2009, In vitro S. epidermidis and S. aureus adherence to composite and lightweight polypropylene grafts., J Surg Res, 157, e79, 10.1016/j.jss.2009.04.008 · DOI
  41. Stoikes, 2017, Characterization of host response, resorption, and strength properties, and performance in the presence of bacteria for fully absorbable biomaterials for soft tissue repair., Hernia, 21, 771, 10.1007/s10029-017-1638-3 · DOI
  42. Basta, 2015, Assessing complications and cost-utilization in ventral hernia repair utilizing biologic mesh in a bridged underlay technique., Am J Surg, 209, 695, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.04.017 · DOI
  43. Booth, 2013, Primary fascial closure with mesh reinforcement is superior to bridged mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction., J Am Coll Surg, 217, 999, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.08.015 · DOI
  44. Juvany, Impact of surgical site infections on elective incisional hernia surgery: A prospective study., Surg Infect (Larchmt.)
  45. Schneeberger, 2019, Cost-utility analysis of biologic and biosynthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair: When are they worth it?, J Am Coll Surg, 228, 66, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.10.009 · DOI
  46. Totten, 2016, Cost of ventral hernia repair using biologic or synthetic mesh., J Surg Res, 203, 459, 10.1016/j.jss.2016.02.040 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Othman, S., Christopher, A., Patel, V., Jia, H., Mellia, J. A., Kovach, S. J., & Fischer, J. P.
Affiliations
From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania.
Venue
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2022-03-18
Volume
149
Issue
5
Pages
1204-1213
ISSN
0032-1052
DOI
10.1097/prs.0000000000009021
Cited by
6
References
0
Language
en

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.