A comparison of patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal wall repair with either synthetic or biosynthetic mesh: a pilot study.

IF 2.6 2区医学 Q1 SURGERY

Hernia Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1007/s10029-024-03022-y

G V Kulkarni, Z Elliott, R Rudd, D Barnes, T M Hammond

{"title":"A comparison of patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal wall repair with either synthetic or biosynthetic mesh: a pilot study.","authors":"G V Kulkarni, Z Elliott, R Rudd, D Barnes, T M Hammond","doi":"10.1007/s10029-024-03022-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Repair of midline ventral incisional hernias (VIHR) requires mesh reinforcement. Mesh types can be categorised into synthetic, biosynthetic, or biological. There is a lack of evidence to support one type of mesh over another. The aim of this pilot study was to compare mesh sensation in patients having undergone elective open repair with synthetic or biosynthetic mesh.Methods: Four years of prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed on 40 patients who had undergone VIHR, using either biosynthetic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular plane. The decision on type of mesh used was governed by patient characteristics. Patients were invited to complete the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) questionnaire, the higher the score indicating a poorer quality of life. The maximum length of follow-up was 36 months.Results: Twenty patients received permanent synthetic and 20 biosynthetic mesh. There was no clinical evidence of hernia recurrence in either group in the short to medium term. Overall, 97% (39/40) patients reported an average of either no or mild symptoms (mean CCS score 17.9 of 115). Patients with a biosynthetic repair had a significant lower CCS at ≥ 18 months (p < 0.05).Conclusion: After VIHR, patients have low CCS scores, indicating good quality of life outcomes, in the short to medium term irrespective of the mesh used. However, biosynthetic mesh had lower CCS scores in the medium term. This may help surgeons and patients make better informed decisions about which mesh to use in their individual circumstances.","PeriodicalId":13168,"journal":{"name":"Hernia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hernia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03022-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Repair of midline ventral incisional hernias (VIHR) requires mesh reinforcement. Mesh types can be categorised into synthetic, biosynthetic, or biological. There is a lack of evidence to support one type of mesh over another. The aim of this pilot study was to compare mesh sensation in patients having undergone elective open repair with synthetic or biosynthetic mesh.

Methods: Four years of prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed on 40 patients who had undergone VIHR, using either biosynthetic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular plane. The decision on type of mesh used was governed by patient characteristics. Patients were invited to complete the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) questionnaire, the higher the score indicating a poorer quality of life. The maximum length of follow-up was 36 months.

Results: Twenty patients received permanent synthetic and 20 biosynthetic mesh. There was no clinical evidence of hernia recurrence in either group in the short to medium term. Overall, 97% (39/40) patients reported an average of either no or mild symptoms (mean CCS score 17.9 of 115). Patients with a biosynthetic repair had a significant lower CCS at ≥ 18 months (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: After VIHR, patients have low CCS scores, indicating good quality of life outcomes, in the short to medium term irrespective of the mesh used. However, biosynthetic mesh had lower CCS scores in the medium term. This may help surgeons and patients make better informed decisions about which mesh to use in their individual circumstances.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用合成网片或生物合成网片进行腹壁修补术的患者报告结果比较：一项试点研究。

目的中线腹股沟切口疝（VIHR）的修复需要网片加固。网片类型可分为合成网片、生物合成网片和生物网片。目前还缺乏证据支持一种网片优于另一种网片。这项试验性研究的目的是比较使用合成或生物合成网片进行选择性开放修补术的患者的网片感觉：方法：对 40 名接受过 VIHR 的患者进行了回顾性研究，这些患者使用生物合成或合成网片在肌肉后平面进行了修复，研究人员回顾了四年来收集的前瞻性数据。使用何种网片取决于患者的特征。研究人员邀请患者填写卡罗莱纳舒适度量表（CCS）问卷，得分越高表示生活质量越差。随访时间最长为 36 个月：20名患者接受了永久性合成网片，20名患者接受了生物合成网片。在中短期内，两组患者均无疝气复发的临床证据。总体而言，97%（39/40）的患者平均无症状或症状轻微（平均 CCS 评分 17.9 分，总分 115 分）。进行生物合成修复的患者在≥18 个月时的 CCS 显著较低（P无论使用哪种网片，VIHR 术后患者的 CCS 评分都较低，表明中短期内生活质量良好。然而，生物合成网片的中期 CCS 评分较低。这可能有助于外科医生和患者根据自身情况更好地决定使用哪种网片。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Hernia SURGERY-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

26.10%

发文量

171

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Hernia was founded in 1997 by Jean P. Chevrel with the purpose of promoting clinical studies and basic research as they apply to groin hernias and the abdominal wall . Since that time, a true revolution in the field of hernia studies has transformed the field from a ”simple” disease to one that is very specialized. While the majority of surgeries for primary inguinal and abdominal wall hernia are performed in hospitals worldwide, complex situations such as multi recurrences, complications, abdominal wall reconstructions and others are being studied and treated in specialist centers. As a result, major institutions and societies are creating specific parameters and criteria to better address the complexities of hernia surgery. Hernia is a journal written by surgeons who have made abdominal wall surgery their specific field of interest, but we will consider publishing content from any surgeon who wishes to improve the science of this field. The Journal aims to ensure that hernia surgery is safer and easier for surgeons as well as patients, and provides a forum to all surgeons in the exchange of new ideas, results, and important research that is the basis of professional activity.