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.

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

Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields

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

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

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

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

Anti‐Adhesion Mesh for Hernia Repair Based on Modified Bacterial Cellulose

A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing short- and medium-term outcomes of novel biologics and lightweight synthetic mesh for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

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

A Novel Bio-Adhesive Mesh System for Medical Implant Applications: In Vivo Assessment in a Rabbit Model

Comparing Different Tissue-Engineered Repair Materials for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence: Which Material is Better?

Hernia Mesh with Biomechanical and Mesh–Tissue Interface Dual Compliance for Scarless Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Abdominal wall hernia repair: from prosthetic meshes to smart materials

Emerging materials and technologies for advancing bioresorbable surgical meshes

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

Primary paraesophageal hernia repair with Gore® Bio-A® tissue reinforcement: long-term outcomes and association of BMI and recurrence

Multimedia article. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernia using a porcine dermal collagen (Permacol) implant

Promotion of Hernia Repair with High-Strength, Flexible, and Bioresorbable Silk Fibroin Mesh in a Large Abdominal Hernia Model

Fully resorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) mesh for soft tissue repair and reconstruction: A scoping review

Synthetic, Biological and Composite Scaffolds for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Tension free open inguinal hernia repair using an innovative self gripping semi-resorbable mesh