4.4 Article

Abdominal hernia repair with bridging acellular dermal matrix - an expensive hernia sac

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 196, Issue 1, Pages 47-50

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.06.035

Keywords

acellular dermal matrix; Alloderm; complicated abdominal hernia; infection; recurrence

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The ability of biologic mesh to remodel into native fascia and prevent hernia recurrence in complicated repairs is appealing. However, few long-term data exist evaluating these products in the setting of bridging fascial defects. These collagen-based mesh products are costly, and long-term evaluation of hernia recurrence rates are necessary to justify their expense. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients undergoing repair of complex abdominal defects with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) at our institution was performed. RESULTS: Between January 2004 and December 2005, It patients underwent complex ventral hernia repairs with bridging ADM. Indications for repair included resection of enterocutaneous fistula, infected mesh, and/or ventral hernia repair. A mean of 175 cm(2) (range 8 to 456) of ADM were used. Mean follow-up was 24 months (range 18 to 37). One patient died on postoperative day 20. Eight of the 10 (80%) remaining patients had recurrences, and 7 underwent further surgery for repair. One patient reported laxity but refused repair. The total cost of ADM alone for these 11 patients was $61,926; the cost for the 8 patients having recurrences was $40,776; and the total mean cost was $5, 1 00/patient. CONCLUSIONS: Although bridging fascial defects with ADM can be an appealing substitute in extremely complicated cases, our data demonstrate exceedingly high recurrence rates. The long-term outcome of bridging fascial defects with biologic prosthesis does not justify the expense of the product. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available