Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence

Bellows, Charles F.; Smith, Alison; Malsbury, Jennifer; Helton, W. Scott

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.02.019

Cited by 90 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dermal substitution is becoming more and more a standard procedure in surgical burn reconstruction. Dermal substitutes are also being used for bi-layered skin resurfacing after trauma or (oncological) resections and in the field of breast reconstruction and hernia repair [13,14]. Elastin is historically underrepresented in commercial dermal substitutes, yet it serves a fundamental role in skin structure and function.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glyaderm® dermal substitute: Clinical application and long-term results in 55 patients

Pirayesh

Hoeksema

Richters³

et al. 2015

Burns

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glyaderm® dermal substitute: Clinical application and long-term results in 55 patients

Pirayesh

Hoeksema

Richters³

et al. 2015

Burns

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although biological meshes are routinely used in infected fields, their high costs remain a barrier to widespread use (43). In addition, there is insufficient evidence in the literature regarding the advantages of biologic meshes over synthetic meshes in hernia repair (44)(45)(46).…”

Section: Classes Of Meshmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical mesh for ventral incisional hernia repairs:Understanding mesh design

Rastegarpour¹,

Cheung²,

Vardhan³

2016

J Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…6,8 During incorporation, they gradually are degraded and generate a new, metabolically active neofascia to withstand the mechanical forces of the abdominal wall. 7,8 The use of synthetic mesh in transplant patients is controversial. Simple, small, and noninfected incisional hernias may be repaired either primarily or with polypropylene mesh with good results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Although permanent mesh prostheses are considered the best treatment for minimizing hernia recurrence, they have been associated with a high risk of complications due to their nonabsorbable characteristics such as erosion into the abdominal viscera, protrusion, extrusion, adhesion, infection, and bowel fistulae that can lead to more complex and costly surgery. 7 Biological mesh was introduced as an alternative to synthetic mesh in the 1990s. 6 There are 15 different bioprosthetic materials taken from different types of tissue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 There are 15 different bioprosthetic materials taken from different types of tissue. 7 Biological mesh prostheses allow neovascularization and regeneration due to infiltration of native fibroblasts and they are incorporated into the surrounding tissue. 6,8 During incorporation, they gradually are degraded and generate a new, metabolically active neofascia to withstand the mechanical forces of the abdominal wall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

2015

Exp Clin Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The use of synthetic mesh in transplant patients is controversial. Recent studies have shown that biological prostheses have a greater ability to integrate into tissues, resist bacterial colonization, and reduce cytotoxic or allergic reactions, and provide similar functional results, compared with synthetic prostheses. Biological prostheses do not require any reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy. We present the case of a kidney and pancreas transplant recipient who had a giant incisional hernia that was treated successfully with a biological prosthesis. Case Report: A 40-year-old male kidney and pancreas transplant recipient was admitted to our hospital with a giant incisional hernia, 2 years after transplant. The defect on the abdominal wall was 40 × 30 cm. We used 2 biological prostheses (40 × 20 cm and 30 × 20 cm) to close the abdominal wall. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 without complications. An abdominal magnetic resonance imaging scan showed complete integrity of the biological prostheses at 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: Transplant recipients have higher risks with use of synthetic prostheses because of being immunosuppressed, compared with other patients. Recent studies show that biological prostheses provided similar functional results without complications compared with synthetic prostheses. These prostheses are versatile and do not require any changes in immunosuppressive therapy. Therefore, they seem to be a better option than synthetic prostheses. In our opinion, biological prostheses are more safe, effective, and reliable than synthetic prostheses, especially for large incisional hernias in transplant recipients. We believe that further larger studies can support our opinion.

show abstract

Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence

Cited by 90 publications

References 102 publications

Glyaderm® dermal substitute: Clinical application and long-term results in 55 patients

Glyaderm® dermal substitute: Clinical application and long-term results in 55 patients

Surgical mesh for ventral incisional hernia repairs:Understanding mesh design

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About