Biologic mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction

Abstract

Background: Mesh reinforcement significantly decreases rates of recurrence following ventral hernia repair. Historically, biologic mesh was touted as superior in the setting of infection; however, selecting the appropriate mesh for a given clinical scenario is often a matter of debate. The purpose of this review is to highlight a number of the more commonly used biologic mesh products with a review of outcomes from the current literature. Methods: Outcomes following abdominal wall reconstruction using biologic mesh were reviewed for acellular cadaveric human dermis, cross-linked porcine dermis, non-cross-linked porcine dermis, porcine small intestine submucosa, acellular bovine pericardial, and acellular bovine dermal mesh. Studies with rigorous methods, adequate patient samples, and sufficient follow-up were selected for review. Results: Hernia recurrence rates following biologic mesh reinforcement vary widely. Porcine small intestine submucosa and bovine pericardium were associated with the lowest hernia recurrence rates. Porcine cross-linked dermal mesh products resulted in higher rates of adhesion formation and lower rates of tissue incorporation compared to non-cross-linked porcine mesh. Conclusion: Successful ventral hernia repair can be achieved with acceptable complications rates for each of the reviewed mesh products. Biologic meshes have an advantage over synthetic mesh in contaminated wounds but their use may not be cost-effective in all patient populations. Those with and/or at high risk for wound complications may also undergo repair with biologic mesh.

Acellular dermal matrix in reconstructive surgery: Applications, benefits, and cost

“…Cevasco et al ( 130 ) also showed that ADM is a suitable substitute in contamination where other synthetic meshes are not recommended ( 130 ). Unfortunately, ADM costs more than synthetic mesh, preventing its widespread use ( 131 ).…”