4.6 Article

Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: The RICH Study

期刊

SURGERY
卷 152, 期 3, 页码 498-505

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.04.008

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. LifeCell Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In the presence of contamination, the repair of a ventral incisional hernia (VIH) is challenging. The presence of comorbidities poses an additional risk for postoperative wound events and hernia recurrence. To date, very few studies describe the outcomes of VIH repair in this high-risk population. Methods. A prospective, multicenter, single-arm, the Repair of Infected or Contaminated Hernias study was performed to study the clinical outcomes of open VIII repair of contaminated abdominal defects with a non cross-linked, porcine, acellular dermal matrix, Strattice. Results. Of 85 patients who consented to participate, 80 underwent open VIH repair with Strattice. Hernia defects were 'clean-contaminated' (n = 39), 'contaminated' (11 = 39), or 'dirty' (n = 2), and the defects were classified as grade 3 (n = 60) or grade 4 (n = 20). The midline was restored, and primary closure was achieved in 64 patients; the defect was bridged in 16 patients. At 24 months, 53 patients (66%) experienced 95 wound events. There were 28 unique, infection-related events in 24 patients. Twenty-two patients experienced seromas, all but 5 of which were transient and required no intervention. No unanticipated adverse events occurred, and no tissue matrix required complete excision. There were 22 hernia (28%) recurrences by month 24. There was no correlation between infection-related events and hernia recurrence. Conclusion. The use of the intact, non cross-linked, porcine, acellular dermal matrix, Strattice, in the repair of contaminated VIH in high-risk patients allowed for successful, single-stage reconstruction in >70% of patients followed for 24 months after repair. (Surgery 2012;152:498-505.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据