Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations

Frank P. Albino, Ketan M. Patel, Maurice Y. Nahabedian, Michael Sosin, Christopher E. Attinger, Parag Bhanot

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND:: Mesh implantation during abdominal wall reconstruction decreases rates of ventral hernia recurrence and has become the dominant method of repair. The authors provide a comprehensive comparison of surgical outcomes and complications by location of mesh placement following ventral hernia repair with onlay, interposition, retrorectus, or underlay mesh. METHODS:: A systematic search of the English literature published from 1996 to 2012 in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was conducted to identify patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using either prosthetic or biological mesh for ventral hernia repair. Demographic information was obtained from each study. RESULTS:: Sixty-two relevant articles were included with 5824 patients treated with mesh repair of a ventral hernia between 1996 and 2012. Mesh position included onlay (19.6 percent), underlay (60.7 percent), interposition (6.4 percent), and retrorectus (12.4 percent). Prosthetic mesh was used in 80 percent of repairs and biological mesh in 20 percent. The weighted mean incidences of early events were as follows: wound complications, 19 percent; wound infections, 8 percent; seroma or hematoma formation, 11 percent; and reoperation, 10 percent. The weighted mean incidences of late complications included 8 percent for hernia recurrence and 2 percent for mesh explantation. Recurrence rates were highest for onlay (17 percent) or interposition (17 percent) reinforcement. The infection rate was also highest in the interposition cohort (25 percent). Seroma rates were lowest following a retrorectus repair (4 percent). CONCLUSIONS:: Mesh reinforcement of a ventral hernia repair is safe and efficacious, but the location of the reinforcement appears to influence outcomes. Underlay or retrorectus mesh placement is associated with lower recurrence rates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1295-1304
Number of pages10
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume132
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ventral Hernia
Abdominal Wall
Inlays
Herniorrhaphy
Seroma
Recurrence
Literature
Incidence
Wound Infection
Hernia
Reoperation
PubMed
MEDLINE
Hematoma
Libraries
Demography
Databases
Wounds and Injuries
Infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations. / Albino, Frank P.; Patel, Ketan M.; Nahabedian, Maurice Y.; Sosin, Michael; Attinger, Christopher E.; Bhanot, Parag.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 132, No. 5, 11.2013, p. 1295-1304.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Albino, Frank P. ; Patel, Ketan M. ; Nahabedian, Maurice Y. ; Sosin, Michael ; Attinger, Christopher E. ; Bhanot, Parag. / Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 132, No. 5. pp. 1295-1304.
@article{10e65fb5f2cc4825860fd337082eea4d,
title = "Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations",
abstract = "BACKGROUND:: Mesh implantation during abdominal wall reconstruction decreases rates of ventral hernia recurrence and has become the dominant method of repair. The authors provide a comprehensive comparison of surgical outcomes and complications by location of mesh placement following ventral hernia repair with onlay, interposition, retrorectus, or underlay mesh. METHODS:: A systematic search of the English literature published from 1996 to 2012 in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was conducted to identify patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using either prosthetic or biological mesh for ventral hernia repair. Demographic information was obtained from each study. RESULTS:: Sixty-two relevant articles were included with 5824 patients treated with mesh repair of a ventral hernia between 1996 and 2012. Mesh position included onlay (19.6 percent), underlay (60.7 percent), interposition (6.4 percent), and retrorectus (12.4 percent). Prosthetic mesh was used in 80 percent of repairs and biological mesh in 20 percent. The weighted mean incidences of early events were as follows: wound complications, 19 percent; wound infections, 8 percent; seroma or hematoma formation, 11 percent; and reoperation, 10 percent. The weighted mean incidences of late complications included 8 percent for hernia recurrence and 2 percent for mesh explantation. Recurrence rates were highest for onlay (17 percent) or interposition (17 percent) reinforcement. The infection rate was also highest in the interposition cohort (25 percent). Seroma rates were lowest following a retrorectus repair (4 percent). CONCLUSIONS:: Mesh reinforcement of a ventral hernia repair is safe and efficacious, but the location of the reinforcement appears to influence outcomes. Underlay or retrorectus mesh placement is associated with lower recurrence rates.",
author = "Albino, {Frank P.} and Patel, {Ketan M.} and Nahabedian, {Maurice Y.} and Michael Sosin and Attinger, {Christopher E.} and Parag Bhanot",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "132",
pages = "1295--1304",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations

AU - Albino, Frank P.

AU - Patel, Ketan M.

AU - Nahabedian, Maurice Y.

AU - Sosin, Michael

AU - Attinger, Christopher E.

AU - Bhanot, Parag

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - BACKGROUND:: Mesh implantation during abdominal wall reconstruction decreases rates of ventral hernia recurrence and has become the dominant method of repair. The authors provide a comprehensive comparison of surgical outcomes and complications by location of mesh placement following ventral hernia repair with onlay, interposition, retrorectus, or underlay mesh. METHODS:: A systematic search of the English literature published from 1996 to 2012 in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was conducted to identify patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using either prosthetic or biological mesh for ventral hernia repair. Demographic information was obtained from each study. RESULTS:: Sixty-two relevant articles were included with 5824 patients treated with mesh repair of a ventral hernia between 1996 and 2012. Mesh position included onlay (19.6 percent), underlay (60.7 percent), interposition (6.4 percent), and retrorectus (12.4 percent). Prosthetic mesh was used in 80 percent of repairs and biological mesh in 20 percent. The weighted mean incidences of early events were as follows: wound complications, 19 percent; wound infections, 8 percent; seroma or hematoma formation, 11 percent; and reoperation, 10 percent. The weighted mean incidences of late complications included 8 percent for hernia recurrence and 2 percent for mesh explantation. Recurrence rates were highest for onlay (17 percent) or interposition (17 percent) reinforcement. The infection rate was also highest in the interposition cohort (25 percent). Seroma rates were lowest following a retrorectus repair (4 percent). CONCLUSIONS:: Mesh reinforcement of a ventral hernia repair is safe and efficacious, but the location of the reinforcement appears to influence outcomes. Underlay or retrorectus mesh placement is associated with lower recurrence rates.

AB - BACKGROUND:: Mesh implantation during abdominal wall reconstruction decreases rates of ventral hernia recurrence and has become the dominant method of repair. The authors provide a comprehensive comparison of surgical outcomes and complications by location of mesh placement following ventral hernia repair with onlay, interposition, retrorectus, or underlay mesh. METHODS:: A systematic search of the English literature published from 1996 to 2012 in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was conducted to identify patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using either prosthetic or biological mesh for ventral hernia repair. Demographic information was obtained from each study. RESULTS:: Sixty-two relevant articles were included with 5824 patients treated with mesh repair of a ventral hernia between 1996 and 2012. Mesh position included onlay (19.6 percent), underlay (60.7 percent), interposition (6.4 percent), and retrorectus (12.4 percent). Prosthetic mesh was used in 80 percent of repairs and biological mesh in 20 percent. The weighted mean incidences of early events were as follows: wound complications, 19 percent; wound infections, 8 percent; seroma or hematoma formation, 11 percent; and reoperation, 10 percent. The weighted mean incidences of late complications included 8 percent for hernia recurrence and 2 percent for mesh explantation. Recurrence rates were highest for onlay (17 percent) or interposition (17 percent) reinforcement. The infection rate was also highest in the interposition cohort (25 percent). Seroma rates were lowest following a retrorectus repair (4 percent). CONCLUSIONS:: Mesh reinforcement of a ventral hernia repair is safe and efficacious, but the location of the reinforcement appears to influence outcomes. Underlay or retrorectus mesh placement is associated with lower recurrence rates.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887271379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887271379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393

M3 - Article

VL - 132

SP - 1295

EP - 1304

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 5

ER -