Use of Biologic and Biosynthetic Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair in Current Practice.

Abstract

Importance: Originally developed for use in contaminated fields, there is growing evidence against the use of biologic and biosynthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair. However, its prevalence and patterns of use in current practice are largely unknown.

Objectives: To describe the prevalence of biologic and biosynthetic mesh use in ventral hernia repair and to identify factors associated with its use.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used a statewide clinical registry in Michigan to identify adults who underwent mesh-based ventral hernia repair between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023. Data analysis was performed from February to May 2024.

Exposures: Use of biologic or biosynthetic mesh vs synthetic mesh.

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was use of biologic or biosynthetic mesh, abstracted directly from the operative report. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with use of biologic or biosynthetic mesh.

Results: A total of 10 838 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [14.0] years; 4619 [42.6%] female) who underwent mesh-based ventral hernia repair were identified, among whom 1174 repairs (10.8%) were performed with biologic or biosynthetic mesh and 9664 (89.2%) were performed with synthetic mesh. Of the 1174 cases using biologic or biosynthetic mesh, 1023 (87.1%) had a clean wound classification and 1039 (88.5%) were performed electively. In multivariable logistic regression, wound contamination was associated with increased odds of biologic or biosynthetic mesh use (clean-contaminated: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.17 [95% CI, 1.62-2.89]; contaminated: aOR, 2.95 [95% CI, 1.63-5.34]; dirty or infected: aOR, 36.22 [95% CI, 12.20-107.56]). Other operative factors associated with increased odds of biologic or biosynthetic mesh use included urgent or emergent surgical priority (aOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.33-2.16]), laparoscopic or robotic approach (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.15-1.50]), larger hernia width (aOR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04] per centimeter), and use of myofascial release (aOR, 2.10 [95% CI, 1.64-2.70]).

Conclusions and relevance: In this large cohort of patients undergoing ventral hernia repair, 1 in 10 mesh-based repairs was performed with biologic or biosynthetic mesh. Although urgent or emergent repair and wound contamination were associated with increased odds of biologic or biosynthetic mesh use, nearly 90% of biologic and biosynthetic mesh use occurred in elective repairs with clean wound classifications. These results raise questions regarding the appropriateness of its application in current practice.