A critical review of biologic mesh use in ventral hernia repairs under contaminated conditions
Department of Surgery, University of California, 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-301, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0104, USA. Hernia
(Impact Factor: 2.05).
01/2013; 17(1). DOI: 10.1007/s10029-012-1037-8
We used an evidence-based approach to determine whether the promotions and claims of superiority of biologic mesh over synthetic mesh use in ventral hernia repairs (VHRs) under contaminated conditions were sound and valid.
We searched the Medline database to specifically identify review articles relating to biologic mesh and VHR and critically reviewed these studies using an evidence-based approach.
For the past 45 years, four clinical reviews and one systematic review have included biologic meshes as part of a larger discussion on available prosthetics for VHR. All reviews supported biologic mesh use, especially in the setting of contaminated fields. Yet, the primary literature included in these reviews and served as the basis for these conclusions consisted entirely of case series and case reports, which have the lowest level of evidence in determining scientific validity. Furthermore, the FDA has neither cleared nor approved this particular use.
The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh use in VHRs under contaminated conditions does not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh used under the same conditions. The highly promoted and at least moderately utilized practice of placing biologic mesh in contamination is being done outside of the original intended use, and a re-evaluation of or possible moratorium on biologic mesh use in hernia surgery is seriously warranted. Alternatively, an industry-sponsored national registry of patients in whom ventral hernia repairs involved biologic mesh would substantively add to our understanding regarding how these intriguing biomaterials are being used and their overall clinical efficacy.
Available from: Ian R Daniels
- "Unfortunately, all biologic meshes have been grouped together, and the majority of the included data pertain to allografts. Many authors have questioned the conclusion that biologic meshes should form part of the surgical armamentarium, since the claim is not substantiated when subjected to scrutiny.23–25 Allografts are known to have high recurrence rates even in clean fields, and up to 100% in contaminated or infected fields, and their inclusion in the reviews has undoubtedly added bias.26,27 "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Soft-tissue reconstruction for a variety of surgical conditions, such as abdominal wall hernia or pelvic organ prolapse, remains a challenge. There are numerous meshes available that may be simply categorized as either synthetic or biologic. Within biologic meshes, porcine dermal meshes have come to dominate the market. This review examines the current evidence for their use and the limitations of knowledge. Although there is increasing evidence to support their safety, long-term follow-up studies that support their efficacy are lacking. Numerous clinical trials that remain ongoing may help elucidate their precise role in soft-tissue reconstruction.
Targets & therapy 03/2014; 8:83-90. DOI:10.2147/BTT.S46469
Available from: link.springer.com
Hernia 01/2013; 17(1). DOI:10.1007/s10029-013-1043-5 · 2.05 Impact Factor
Available from: Hobart W Harris
Annals of surgery 04/2013; 257(6). DOI:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182942797 · 8.33 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.