ParietexTM Composite mesh versus DynaMesh®-IPOM for laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is widely accepted and safe but the type of mesh used is still debated. We retrospectively compared postoperative outcomes with two different meshes commonly used in LIVHR. METHODS This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent incisional hernia repair between January 2008 and December 2010. Two meshes were used: Parietex(TM) Composite (Covidien, New Haven, CT, USA) and the DynaMesh((R)) -IPOM (FEG Textiltechnik mbH, Aachen, Germany). The two groups were compared with respect to recurrence rates, incidence of seroma and intestinal obstruction. RESULTS Among the 88 patients who underwent LIVHR, 75 patients (85.2%) presented with primary incisional hernia, 10 (11.4%) presented with a first recurrence and 3 (3.4%) presented with a second recurrence. Median follow-up was 53.6 months (range 40-61 months). 12.9% of patients had recurrence in the Parietex(TM) Composite mesh group (n= 62) in comparison to 3.8% in the DynaMesh((R)) -IPOM mesh group (n= 26; P= 0.20). DynaMesh((R)) -IPOM was associated with a significantly higher incidence of intestinal obstruction secondary to adhesions (11.5% vs. 0%, P= 0.006) and lower incidence of seroma and haematoma formation compared to Parietex(TM) composite mesh group (0% vs. 6.4% of patients; P= 0.185). CONCLUSIONS LIVHR is a safe and feasible technique. Dynamesh((R)) -IPOM is associated with a significantly higher incidence of adhesion related bowel obstruction, albeit with a lower incidence of recurrence, seroma and haematoma formation compared with Parietex(TM) Composite mesh. However, there is a need for further well-designed, multicentre randomised controlled studies to investigate the use of these meshes.