4.7 Article

Is There Indication for the Use of Biological Mesh in Cancer Patients?

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 20, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206035

Keywords

ventral hernia; oncological patients; ventral hernia repair; abdominal wall; mesh; biological mesh

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the recurrence risk of ventral hernia in oncological patients and finds that it is strongly related to BMI and type of surgery, but not related to the type of mesh used.
Up to 28% of all patients who undergo open surgery will develop a ventral hernia (VH) in the post-operative period. VH surgery is a debated topic in the literature, especially in oncological patients due to complex management. We searched in the surgical database of the Hepatobiliary Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Naples G. Pascale Foundation for all patients who underwent abdominal surgery for malignancy from January 2010 to December 2018. Our surgical approach and our choice of mesh for VH repair was planned case-by-case. We selected 57 patients that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, and we divided them into two groups: biological versus synthetic prosthesis. Anterior component separation was used in 31 patients (54.4%) vs. bridging procedure in 26 (45.6%). In 41 cases (71.9%), we used a biological mesh while a synthetic one was adopted in the remaining patients. Of our patients, 57% were male (33 male vs. 24 female) with a median age of 65 and a mean BMI of 30.8. We collected ventral hernia defects from 35 cm(2) to 600 cm(2) (mean 205.2 cm(2)); 30-day complications were present in 24 patients (42.1%), no 30-day mortality was reported, and 21 patients had a recurrence of pathology during study follow-up. This study confirms VH recurrence risk is not related with the type of mesh but is strongly related with BMI and type of surgery also in oncological patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available