Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients

Abstract Introduction Biologic mesh is preferred for repair of complex abdominal wall hernias (CAWHs) in patients at high risk of wound infection. We aimed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after complex abdominal wall hernia repair (CAWR) using biologic mesh with different placement techni...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of surgery (London, England) England), 2017-07, Vol.43, p.26-32
Hauptverfasser: Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS, Samson, David, MS, Haider, Ansab, MD, Azim, Asad, MD, Iftikhar, Hajira, MD, Joseph, Bellal, MD, Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD, Con, Jorge, MD, Gashi, Saranda, MPH, El-Menyar, Ayman, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 32
container_issue
container_start_page 26
container_title International journal of surgery (London, England)
container_volume 43
creator Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS
Samson, David, MS
Haider, Ansab, MD
Azim, Asad, MD
Iftikhar, Hajira, MD
Joseph, Bellal, MD
Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD
Con, Jorge, MD
Gashi, Saranda, MPH
El-Menyar, Ayman, MD
description Abstract Introduction Biologic mesh is preferred for repair of complex abdominal wall hernias (CAWHs) in patients at high risk of wound infection. We aimed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after complex abdominal wall hernia repair (CAWR) using biologic mesh with different placement techniques and under different surgical settings. Methods A retrospective case series study was conducted on all patients who underwent CAWR with biologic mesh between 2010 and 2015 at a tertiary medical center. Results: the study population included 140 patients with a mean age of 54 ± 14 years and a median follow up period 8.8 months. Mesh size ranged from 50 to 1225 cm2 . Ninety percent of patients had undergone previous surgery. Type of surgery was classified as elective in 50.7%, urgent in 24.3% and emergent in 25.0% and a porcine mesh was implanted in 82.9%. The most common mesh placement technique was underlay (70.7%), followed by onlay (16.4%) and bridge (12.9%). Complications included wound complications (30.7%), reoperation (25.9%), hernia recurrence (20.7%), and mesh removal (10.0%). Thirty-two patients (23.0%) were admitted to the ICU and the mean hospital length of stay was 10.8 ± 17.5 days. Age-sex adjusted predictors of recurrence were COPD (OR 4.2; 95%CI 1.003–17.867) and urgent surgery (OR 10.5; 95%CI 1.856–59.469), whereas for reoperation, mesh size (OR 6.8; 95%CI 1.344–34.495) and urgent surgery (OR 5.2; 95%CI 1.353–19.723) were the predictors. Conclusions Using biologic mesh, one-quarter and one-fifth of CAWR patients are complicated with reoperation or recurrence, respectively. The operation settings and comorbidity may play a role in these outcomes regardless of the mesh placement techniques.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.05.031
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1900831398</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1743919117304132</els_id><sourcerecordid>1900831398</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-fe754712efb876472bce4fc8f87c1b4f588c2cd25f9e96e99318c791d24b5cdd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctu1jAUhCMEoqXwAiyQl2wSbMeObYSQqoqbVAmJy9py7BN-p04c7KSXt8fRX7pgwerMYmak801VvSS4IZh0b8bGj3lrKCaiwbzBLXlUnRLB2loRrh4_aEVOqmc5jxgzLIl8Wp1QyWnXcXFa3X7z-ao2btzyCg4Zdw0pA4rbauMEGfkZFbEEuEWmd3HyswnoxoSADpBmb1CCxfiEbvx6QL2PIf7yFpXk4S06R9aUrgzJl6Y4IMIwWszqYV7z8-rJYEKGF_f3rPr58cOPi8_15ddPXy7OL2vLOF_rAQRnglAYeik6JmhvgQ1WDlJY0rOBS2mpdZQPClQHSrVEWqGIo6zn1rn2rHp97F1S_L1BXvXks4UQzAxxy5oojGVLWiWLlR6tNsWcEwx6SX4y6U4TrHfietQ7cb0T15jrQryEXt33b_0E7iHyF3ExvDsaoHx57SHpbAsBC84nsKt20f-___0_cRv87K0JV3AHeYxbKpOUP3SmGuvv--b75ES0mJGWtn8AF6-oPw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1900831398</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS ; Samson, David, MS ; Haider, Ansab, MD ; Azim, Asad, MD ; Iftikhar, Hajira, MD ; Joseph, Bellal, MD ; Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD ; Con, Jorge, MD ; Gashi, Saranda, MPH ; El-Menyar, Ayman, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS ; Samson, David, MS ; Haider, Ansab, MD ; Azim, Asad, MD ; Iftikhar, Hajira, MD ; Joseph, Bellal, MD ; Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD ; Con, Jorge, MD ; Gashi, Saranda, MPH ; El-Menyar, Ayman, MD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Introduction Biologic mesh is preferred for repair of complex abdominal wall hernias (CAWHs) in patients at high risk of wound infection. We aimed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after complex abdominal wall hernia repair (CAWR) using biologic mesh with different placement techniques and under different surgical settings. Methods A retrospective case series study was conducted on all patients who underwent CAWR with biologic mesh between 2010 and 2015 at a tertiary medical center. Results: the study population included 140 patients with a mean age of 54 ± 14 years and a median follow up period 8.8 months. Mesh size ranged from 50 to 1225 cm2 . Ninety percent of patients had undergone previous surgery. Type of surgery was classified as elective in 50.7%, urgent in 24.3% and emergent in 25.0% and a porcine mesh was implanted in 82.9%. The most common mesh placement technique was underlay (70.7%), followed by onlay (16.4%) and bridge (12.9%). Complications included wound complications (30.7%), reoperation (25.9%), hernia recurrence (20.7%), and mesh removal (10.0%). Thirty-two patients (23.0%) were admitted to the ICU and the mean hospital length of stay was 10.8 ± 17.5 days. Age-sex adjusted predictors of recurrence were COPD (OR 4.2; 95%CI 1.003–17.867) and urgent surgery (OR 10.5; 95%CI 1.856–59.469), whereas for reoperation, mesh size (OR 6.8; 95%CI 1.344–34.495) and urgent surgery (OR 5.2; 95%CI 1.353–19.723) were the predictors. Conclusions Using biologic mesh, one-quarter and one-fifth of CAWR patients are complicated with reoperation or recurrence, respectively. The operation settings and comorbidity may play a role in these outcomes regardless of the mesh placement techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1743-9191</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1743-9159</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.05.031</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28526657</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Abdominal Wall - surgery ; Abdominal wall defect ; Adult ; Aged ; Animals ; Biologic mesh ; Biological Products - adverse effects ; Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Elective Surgical Procedures - methods ; Female ; Hernia repair ; Hernia, Ventral - surgery ; Herniorrhaphy - adverse effects ; Herniorrhaphy - methods ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Outcomes ; Recurrence ; Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgery ; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects ; Swine ; Techniques ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>International journal of surgery (London, England), 2017-07, Vol.43, p.26-32</ispartof><rights>IJS Publishing Group Ltd</rights><rights>2017 IJS Publishing Group Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-fe754712efb876472bce4fc8f87c1b4f588c2cd25f9e96e99318c791d24b5cdd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-fe754712efb876472bce4fc8f87c1b4f588c2cd25f9e96e99318c791d24b5cdd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919117304132$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28526657$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samson, David, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haider, Ansab, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azim, Asad, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iftikhar, Hajira, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joseph, Bellal, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Con, Jorge, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gashi, Saranda, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El-Menyar, Ayman, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients</title><title>International journal of surgery (London, England)</title><addtitle>Int J Surg</addtitle><description>Abstract Introduction Biologic mesh is preferred for repair of complex abdominal wall hernias (CAWHs) in patients at high risk of wound infection. We aimed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after complex abdominal wall hernia repair (CAWR) using biologic mesh with different placement techniques and under different surgical settings. Methods A retrospective case series study was conducted on all patients who underwent CAWR with biologic mesh between 2010 and 2015 at a tertiary medical center. Results: the study population included 140 patients with a mean age of 54 ± 14 years and a median follow up period 8.8 months. Mesh size ranged from 50 to 1225 cm2 . Ninety percent of patients had undergone previous surgery. Type of surgery was classified as elective in 50.7%, urgent in 24.3% and emergent in 25.0% and a porcine mesh was implanted in 82.9%. The most common mesh placement technique was underlay (70.7%), followed by onlay (16.4%) and bridge (12.9%). Complications included wound complications (30.7%), reoperation (25.9%), hernia recurrence (20.7%), and mesh removal (10.0%). Thirty-two patients (23.0%) were admitted to the ICU and the mean hospital length of stay was 10.8 ± 17.5 days. Age-sex adjusted predictors of recurrence were COPD (OR 4.2; 95%CI 1.003–17.867) and urgent surgery (OR 10.5; 95%CI 1.856–59.469), whereas for reoperation, mesh size (OR 6.8; 95%CI 1.344–34.495) and urgent surgery (OR 5.2; 95%CI 1.353–19.723) were the predictors. Conclusions Using biologic mesh, one-quarter and one-fifth of CAWR patients are complicated with reoperation or recurrence, respectively. The operation settings and comorbidity may play a role in these outcomes regardless of the mesh placement techniques.</description><subject>Abdominal Wall - surgery</subject><subject>Abdominal wall defect</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biologic mesh</subject><subject>Biological Products - adverse effects</subject><subject>Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Elective Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hernia repair</subject><subject>Hernia, Ventral - surgery</subject><subject>Herniorrhaphy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Herniorrhaphy - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Outcomes</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Techniques</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1743-9191</issn><issn>1743-9159</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctu1jAUhCMEoqXwAiyQl2wSbMeObYSQqoqbVAmJy9py7BN-p04c7KSXt8fRX7pgwerMYmak801VvSS4IZh0b8bGj3lrKCaiwbzBLXlUnRLB2loRrh4_aEVOqmc5jxgzLIl8Wp1QyWnXcXFa3X7z-ao2btzyCg4Zdw0pA4rbauMEGfkZFbEEuEWmd3HyswnoxoSADpBmb1CCxfiEbvx6QL2PIf7yFpXk4S06R9aUrgzJl6Y4IMIwWszqYV7z8-rJYEKGF_f3rPr58cOPi8_15ddPXy7OL2vLOF_rAQRnglAYeik6JmhvgQ1WDlJY0rOBS2mpdZQPClQHSrVEWqGIo6zn1rn2rHp97F1S_L1BXvXks4UQzAxxy5oojGVLWiWLlR6tNsWcEwx6SX4y6U4TrHfietQ7cb0T15jrQryEXt33b_0E7iHyF3ExvDsaoHx57SHpbAsBC84nsKt20f-___0_cRv87K0JV3AHeYxbKpOUP3SmGuvv--b75ES0mJGWtn8AF6-oPw</recordid><startdate>20170701</startdate><enddate>20170701</enddate><creator>Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS</creator><creator>Samson, David, MS</creator><creator>Haider, Ansab, MD</creator><creator>Azim, Asad, MD</creator><creator>Iftikhar, Hajira, MD</creator><creator>Joseph, Bellal, MD</creator><creator>Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD</creator><creator>Con, Jorge, MD</creator><creator>Gashi, Saranda, MPH</creator><creator>El-Menyar, Ayman, MD</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170701</creationdate><title>Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients</title><author>Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS ; Samson, David, MS ; Haider, Ansab, MD ; Azim, Asad, MD ; Iftikhar, Hajira, MD ; Joseph, Bellal, MD ; Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD ; Con, Jorge, MD ; Gashi, Saranda, MPH ; El-Menyar, Ayman, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-fe754712efb876472bce4fc8f87c1b4f588c2cd25f9e96e99318c791d24b5cdd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Wall - surgery</topic><topic>Abdominal wall defect</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biologic mesh</topic><topic>Biological Products - adverse effects</topic><topic>Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Elective Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hernia repair</topic><topic>Hernia, Ventral - surgery</topic><topic>Herniorrhaphy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Herniorrhaphy - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Outcomes</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Techniques</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samson, David, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haider, Ansab, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azim, Asad, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iftikhar, Hajira, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joseph, Bellal, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Con, Jorge, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gashi, Saranda, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El-Menyar, Ayman, MD</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of surgery (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Latifi, Rifat, MD, FACS</au><au>Samson, David, MS</au><au>Haider, Ansab, MD</au><au>Azim, Asad, MD</au><au>Iftikhar, Hajira, MD</au><au>Joseph, Bellal, MD</au><au>Tilley, Elizabeth, PhD</au><au>Con, Jorge, MD</au><au>Gashi, Saranda, MPH</au><au>El-Menyar, Ayman, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients</atitle><jtitle>International journal of surgery (London, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Surg</addtitle><date>2017-07-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>43</volume><spage>26</spage><epage>32</epage><pages>26-32</pages><issn>1743-9191</issn><eissn>1743-9159</eissn><abstract>Abstract Introduction Biologic mesh is preferred for repair of complex abdominal wall hernias (CAWHs) in patients at high risk of wound infection. We aimed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after complex abdominal wall hernia repair (CAWR) using biologic mesh with different placement techniques and under different surgical settings. Methods A retrospective case series study was conducted on all patients who underwent CAWR with biologic mesh between 2010 and 2015 at a tertiary medical center. Results: the study population included 140 patients with a mean age of 54 ± 14 years and a median follow up period 8.8 months. Mesh size ranged from 50 to 1225 cm2 . Ninety percent of patients had undergone previous surgery. Type of surgery was classified as elective in 50.7%, urgent in 24.3% and emergent in 25.0% and a porcine mesh was implanted in 82.9%. The most common mesh placement technique was underlay (70.7%), followed by onlay (16.4%) and bridge (12.9%). Complications included wound complications (30.7%), reoperation (25.9%), hernia recurrence (20.7%), and mesh removal (10.0%). Thirty-two patients (23.0%) were admitted to the ICU and the mean hospital length of stay was 10.8 ± 17.5 days. Age-sex adjusted predictors of recurrence were COPD (OR 4.2; 95%CI 1.003–17.867) and urgent surgery (OR 10.5; 95%CI 1.856–59.469), whereas for reoperation, mesh size (OR 6.8; 95%CI 1.344–34.495) and urgent surgery (OR 5.2; 95%CI 1.353–19.723) were the predictors. Conclusions Using biologic mesh, one-quarter and one-fifth of CAWR patients are complicated with reoperation or recurrence, respectively. The operation settings and comorbidity may play a role in these outcomes regardless of the mesh placement techniques.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>28526657</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.05.031</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1743-9191
ispartof International journal of surgery (London, England), 2017-07, Vol.43, p.26-32
issn 1743-9191
1743-9159
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1900831398
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Abdominal Wall - surgery
Abdominal wall defect
Adult
Aged
Animals
Biologic mesh
Biological Products - adverse effects
Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects
Elective Surgical Procedures - methods
Female
Hernia repair
Hernia, Ventral - surgery
Herniorrhaphy - adverse effects
Herniorrhaphy - methods
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Outcomes
Recurrence
Reoperation - statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Surgery
Surgical Mesh - adverse effects
Swine
Techniques
Treatment Outcome
title Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T13%3A08%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Risk-adjusted%20adverse%20outcomes%20in%20complex%20abdominal%20wall%20hernia%20repair%20with%20biologic%20mesh:%20A%20case%20series%20of%20140%20patients&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20surgery%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Latifi,%20Rifat,%20MD,%20FACS&rft.date=2017-07-01&rft.volume=43&rft.spage=26&rft.epage=32&rft.pages=26-32&rft.issn=1743-9191&rft.eissn=1743-9159&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.05.031&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1900831398%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1900831398&rft_id=info:pmid/28526657&rft_els_id=S1743919117304132&rfr_iscdi=true