Abstract:Introduction: The choice of biologic compared with synthetic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction remains controversial, especially in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds. This study evaluated wound complications and hernia recurrence with a 2:1 propensity-matched sample and extended follow-up. Methods and procedures: A prospectively maintained abdominal wall reconstruction database was queried for patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction using biologic or synthetic mesh in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds. Patients receiving synthetic or biologic mesh were propensity score matched in a 2:1 fashion. Univariate, bivariate, and inferential analyses were conducted. Unless stated, data are reported as biologic compared with synthetic. Results: In total, 519 patients were compared, 173 with biologic and 346 with synthetic mesh. Defect size (215.2 ± 153.6 cm2 vs 251.5 ± 284.3 cm2), body mass index (33.6 ± 9 kg/m2 vs 34 ±17.7 kg/m2), and comorbidities were well matched (all P > .05). Although Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound class was used in the match, it was significantly different between groups (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1:43.4% vs 81.2%, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2:56.6% vs 18.8%; P < .001). The rate of component separation (40.1% vs 44.2%; P = .397), fascial closure (97.7% vs 98.3%; P = .738), and panniculectomy (33.5% vs 29.2%; P = .315) were similar. Mesh size was also similar (816.4 ± 555.5 vs 892.2 ± 487.8 cm2; P = .112). Wound complications were equal, including wound breakdown (10.5% vs 7.5%; P = .315), wound cellulitis (5.2% vs 5.8%; P = .843), wound infection (7.5% vs 4.6%; P = .223), seroma requiring intervention (6.4% vs 7.8%; P = .597), and mesh infection (1.2% vs 0.9%; P > .999). The biologic group had an increased length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 days vs 5.4 ± 2.3 days; P < .001) and greater hospital charges ($82,181 ± 50,356 vs $62,221 ± 26,817 USD; P < .001). Mean follow-up after biologic repair was longer (33.9 ± 36.6 months vs 23.3 ± 32.3 months; P < .001). Hernia recurrence between the biologic and synthetic groups was not significantly different (2.9% vs 1.4%; P = .313). On multivariable regression, wound complications were predictive of recurrence, and panniculectomy was predictive of wound complications. Conclusion: In a 2:1 matched analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1 and 2 wounds with nearly 3-years of follow-up, biologic and synthetic mesh had similar rates of wound complications and recurrence in abdominal wall reconstruction.

Short–term outcomes of heavyweight versus mediumweight synthetic mesh in a retrospective cohort of clean–contaminated and contaminated retromuscular ventral hernia repairs

Weighing the benefits: Exploring the differential effects of light-weight and heavy-weight polypropylene meshes in inguinal hernia repair in a retrospective cohort study

Elective complex ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields: A propensity score-matched analysis of long-term quality of life and outcomes between different prostheses

Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields

Acellular Dermal Matrix Provides Durable Long-Term Outcomes in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Outcomes and Quality of Life After Resorbable Synthetic Ventral Hernia Repair in Contaminated Fields

A meta-analysis comparing lightweight meshes with heavyweight meshes in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.

Outcomes of synthetic and biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: A propensity-matched analysis in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds

Long-term outcomes of PGA-TMC absorbable synthetic scaffold in both clean and contaminated ventral hernia repairs

Retrospective comparison on therapeutic outcomes between light-weight mesh and middle-weight mesh used in open hernia repair

Mesh exposure after ventral hernia repair with onlay biosynthetic mesh: a retrospective review of associated risk factors and management strategies

Functional and morphological evaluation of different polypropylene-mesh modifications for abdominal wall repair

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing partially absorbable lightweight mesh and multifilament polyester anatomical mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

Long-term mesh-related complications from minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh for small to medium-sized ventral hernias

Long-term outcomes of open midline ventral hernia repair using a narrow well-fixed retrorectus polypropylene mesh

One-year results of a prospective, randomised clinical trial comparing four meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TAPP)

Novel Large-Pore Lightweight Polypropylene Mesh Has Better Biocompatibility for Rat Model of Hernia.

Costs and Complications Associated with Infected Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair

A combined experimental and numerical approach to evaluate hernia mesh biomechanical stability in situ

Evaluation of 30-day outcomes for open ventral hernia repair using self-gripping versus nonself-gripping mesh

Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis