scieee AI-readable full text Open interactive document viewer

Ventral hernia repair in high-risk patients and contaminated fields using a single mesh proportional meta-analysis

Morales Conde, Salvador; Hernández-Granados, P; Tallón Aguilar, Luis; Verdaguer-Tremolosa, M; López-Cano, M.

Abstract

Purpose The use of mesh is a common practice in ventral hernia repair (VHR). Lack of consensus on which prosthetic material works better in different settings remains. This meta-analysis aims to summarize the available evidence on hernia recurrence and complications after repair with synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable meshes in hernias grade 2–3 of the Ventral Hernia Working Group modified classification. Methods A literature search was conducted in January 2021 using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and MEDLINE (via PubMed) databases. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and observational studies with adult patients undergoing VHR with either synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh were included. Outcomes were hernia recurrence, Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO), Surgical Site Infection (SSI), 30 days re-intervention, and infected mesh removal. Random-effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were performed. Quality of the studies was assessed, and heterogeneity was explored through sensitivity analyses. Results 25 articles were eligible for inclusion. Mean age ranged from 47 to 64 years and participants’ follow-up ranged from 1 to 36 months. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh reported a 9% (95% CI 2–19%) rate of hernia recurrence, lower than synthetic and biologic meshes. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh repair also showed a lower incidence of SSI, with a 14% (95% CI 6–24%) rate, and there was no evidence of infected mesh removal. Rates of seroma were similar for the different materials. Conclusions This meta-analysis did not show meaningful differences among materials. However, the best proportions towards lower recurrence and complication rates after grade 2–3 VHR were after using biosynthetic/slowly absorbable mesh reinforcement. These results should be taken with caution, as head-to-head comparative studies between biosynthetic and synthetic/biologic meshes are lacking. Although, biosynthetic/bioabsorbable materials could be considered an alternative to synthetic and biologic mesh reinforcement in these settings.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Hernia (2023) 27:207 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02705-8 CORRECTION Correction: Ventral hernia repair inhigh‑risk patients andcontaminated fields using asingle mesh: proportional meta‑analysis S.Morales‑Conde1 · P.Hernández‑Granados2 · L.Tallón‑Aguilar3 · M.Verdaguer‑Tremolosa4 · M.López‑Cano4 Published online: 1 November 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Correction: Hernia https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10029- 022- 02668-w The article Ventral hernia repair in high-risk patients and contaminated fields using a single mesh: proportional meta-analysis, written by S. Morales-Conde, P. Hernández- Granados, L. Tallón-Aguilar, M. Verdaguer-Tremolosa and M. López-Cano, was originally published electronically in SpringerLink on 13 September 2022 without open access. After publication online with the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 27 October 2022 to © The Author(s) 2022 and article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The original article has been corrected. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The original article can be found online at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10029- 022- 02668-w. * L. Tallón-Aguilar [email protected] 1 Unit ofInnovation inMinimally Invasive Surgery, Department ofGeneral Surgery, University Hospital Virgen del Rocío, University ofSevilla, Seville, Spain 2 General Surgery Unit, Fundación Alcorcón University Hospital, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Spain 3 Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department ofGeneral Surgery, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, c/ Asuncion 26, 2ºA, 41011Seville, Spain 4 Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department ofGeneral Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain