Mediumweight polypropylene mesh fractures after open retromuscular ventral hernia repair: incidence and associated risk factors

Purpose Mediumweight (MW) and heavyweight (HW) polypropylene have demonstrated similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes in the setting of open retromuscular ventral hernia repair (VHR). While MW mesh has an anecdotal risk of central mesh fracture, that phenomenon is not well-characterized. We...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2023-07, Vol.37 (7), p.5438-5443
Hauptverfasser: Maskal, Sara, Miller, Benjamin, Ellis, Ryan, Phillips, Sharon, Prabhu, Ajita, Beffa, Lucas, Krpata, David, Rosenblatt, Steven, Rosen, Michael, Petro, Clayton
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Mediumweight (MW) and heavyweight (HW) polypropylene have demonstrated similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes in the setting of open retromuscular ventral hernia repair (VHR). While MW mesh has an anecdotal risk of central mesh fracture, that phenomenon is not well-characterized. We sought to assess the incidence of and risk factors for MW polypropylene mesh fractures after VHR. Methods The ACHQC registry was queried for patients with CT-documented hernia recurrence after open retromuscular VHR with MW polypropylene mesh at our institution with 1-year follow-up between January 2014 and April 2022. Images were reviewed by five blinded surgeons at Cleveland Clinic to reach consensus that hernia recurrence mechanism was central mesh fracture. Patients without clinical recurrence or patient-reported bulge were used as a comparator group. Results Eighty patients were identified with radiographically documented recurrence; 28 had recurrence from mesh fractures and these were compared to 644 patients without recurrence. Incidence of MW fracture was 4.2%. Bridging of anterior fascia was more common in the group with the central mesh fracture (33.3% vs 3.3%, p  
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-023-10039-4