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.

Outcomes and Quality of Life After Resorbable Synthetic 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

Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields

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

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

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

Quality of life following repair of large hiatal hernia is not influenced by the use of mesh—Longer‐term follow‐up from a randomized trial

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

Costs and Complications Associated with Infected Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair

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

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

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

Short- and long-term outcomes of open inguinal hernia repair: comparison of the Prolene Hernia System and the Mesh Plug method

Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

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

Posterior mesh inguinal hernia repairs: a propensity score matched analysis of laparoscopic and robotic versus open approaches

Surgical Outcomes and Quality of Life Post-Synthetic Mesh-Augmented Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in the Chinese Population.

Open mesh ventral incisional hernia repair:a report of 210 cases

Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Five-Year Outcomes from a Prospective Study on the Safety and Efficacy of Phasix-ST Mesh Use at the Hiatus During Paraesophageal 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