title: Component separation with porcine acellular dermal reinforcement is superior to traditional bridged mesh repairs in the open repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects.
abstract: The optimal technique for complex ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains controversial. Component separation (CS) reinforced with porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM) has shown favorable results compared with series of conventional bridged VHR, but few comparative studies exist. We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing 40 randomly selected patients who underwent CS/PADM reinforcement against an identical number of patients who underwent conventional open VHR with mesh at our institution. Patient characteristics, operative findings, outcomes, complications, reoperations, and recurrences were obtained by chart review. Fisher's exact/t test compared outcomes between the two cohorts. Statistical significance was set as P < 0.05. Mean follow-up was 33.1 months. Patient groups did not differ significantly in race (P = 1.00), age (P = 0.82), body mass index (P = 0.14), or comorbid conditions (smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity, steroid use; P values 0.60, 0.29, 0.08, and 0.56, respectively). Defect size was greater in the CS/PADM group (mean, 372.5 vs 283.7 cm(2), P = 0.01) as was the percentage Ventral Hernia Working Group Grade III/IV hernias (65.0 vs 30.0%, P = 0.03). Recurrences were lower in the CS/PADM group (13.2 vs 37.5%, P = 0.02). Mesh infection was lower in the CS/PADM group (0 vs 23% in the bridged group, P = 0.002), all of which occurred with synthetic mesh. Indications for reoperation (recurrence or complications requiring reoperation) were also lower in the CS/PADM group (17.5 vs 52.5%, P = 0.002). Superior results are achieved with CS/PADM reinforcement over traditional bridged VHR. This is evidenced by lower recurrence rates and overall complications requiring reoperation, particularly mesh infection. This is despite the greater use of CS in larger defects and contaminated hernias (VHWG Grade III and IV). CS/PADM reinforcement should be strongly considered for the repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, West Virginia University, Charleston, West Virginia, USA.
authors.forename: Bryan
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Richmond
authors.forename: Adam
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ubert
authors.forename: Rudy
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Judhan
authors.forename: Jonathan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: King
authors.forename: Tanner
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Harrah
authors.forename: Benjamin
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Dyer
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Thompson
mesh_terms: D062088:Acellular Dermis; D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D006555:Hernia, Ventral / Q000601:surgery*; D059685:Herniorrhaphy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000601:surgery; D012008:Recurrence; D012086:Reoperation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D013552:Swine; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2012 Jan;255(1):176-80
references.pmid: 21677561
references.citation: Surgery. 2010 Sep;148(3):544-58
references.pmid: 20304452
references.citation: Acta Chir Belg. 2004 Aug;104(4):425-8
references.pmid: 15469155
references.citation: Am J Surg. 2010 Mar;199(3):342-6; discussion 346-7
references.pmid: 20226907
references.citation: Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990 Sep;86(3):519-26
references.pmid: 2143588
references.citation: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jul;130(1):116-124
references.pmid: 22743878
references.citation: Am Surg. 2009 Sep;75(9):762-7; discussion 767-8
references.pmid: 19774946
references.citation: Surgery. 2012 Sep;152(3):498-505
references.pmid: 22763262
references.citation: Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Oct;69(4):394-8
references.pmid: 22156887
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2000 Aug 10;343(6):392-8
references.pmid: 10933738
references.citation: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Jun;109(7):2275-80; discussion 2281-2
references.pmid: 12045549
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2013 Jun;257(6):991-6
references.pmid: 23426340
references.citation: Arch Surg. 2009 Mar;144(3):209-15
references.pmid: 19289658
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Dec;217(6):991-8
references.pmid: 24045140
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Dec;217(6):999-1009
references.pmid: 24083910
references.citation: Surgery. 2013 Jan;153(1):120-5
references.pmid: 22862901
references.citation: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Jan;125(1):167-176
references.pmid: 19910855
references.citation: Hernia. 2014 Feb;18(1):131-3
references.pmid: 22824989
references.citation: Hernia. 2012 Apr;16(2):179-83
references.pmid: 21904861
references.citation: Ann Plast Surg. 2007 Mar;58(3):264-7
references.pmid: 17471129
references.citation: Am J Surg. 2013 May;205(5):602-7; discussion 607
references.pmid: 23592170
references.citation: Ann Plast Surg. 2011 May;66(5):488-92
references.pmid: 21372667
references.citation: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Sep;128(3):698-709
references.pmid: 21572378
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2003 Jan;237(1):129-35
references.pmid: 12496540
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Sep;211(3):368-76
references.pmid: 20800194
references.citation: Ann Plast Surg. 2013 Sep;71(3):266-8
references.pmid: 23945531