Biologic versus Synthetic Mesh Reinforcement: What are the Pros and Cons?

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Preserving patients' native tissues has posed many challenges for surgeons. Increased life expectancy is leading to a proportionately older surgical population with weaker tissues. The growing population of morbidly obese patients in addition to those with multiple comorbidities which influence the native strength and perfusion of tissues compounds the surgeon's challenge. Certainly, there is a rising demand for materials to replace or augment a patient's native tissue when it has been compromised. Over time, the number of products available has increased substantially. The ideal substitute, however, is debatable. The manufacturing and processing of these materials has become more complex and this has resulted in a significant increase in cost. The composition of the mesh, clinical scenario, and operative technique all interact to impact the long-term results. Surgeons require a thorough understanding of these products to guide proper selection and use, to ensure optimal outcomes for patients, and to properly steward financial resources. This review will outline the properties of commonly used materials, highlighting the strength and weakness of each. It will then discuss recommendations regarding mesh selection, coding, and reimbursement. While general principles and trends can be highlighted, further studies of biologic versus synthetic meshes are clearly necessary.

• References

• 1 Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE. The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature review and clinical experience. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 186 (3) 352-367
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 2005; 12 (1) 63-69
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 1998; 133 (4) 378-382
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Rosen MJ. Polyester-based mesh for ventral hernia repair: is it safe?. Am J Surg 2009; 197 (3) 353-359
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Judge TW, Parker DM, Dinsmore RC. Abdominal wall hernia repair: a comparison of sepramesh and parietex composite mesh in a rabbit hernia model. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204 (2) 276-281
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Bachman S, Ramshaw B. Prosthetic material in ventral hernia repair: how do I choose?. Surg Clin North Am 2008; 88 (1) 101-112 , ix
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Simmermacher RKJ, Schakenraad JM, Bleichrodt RP. Reherniation after repair of the abdominal wall with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. J Am Coll Surg 1994; 178 (6) 613-616
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Johnson EK, Hoyt CH, Dinsmore RC. Abdominal wall hernia repair: a long-term comparison of Sepramesh and Dualmesh in a rabbit hernia model. Am Surg 2004; 70 (8) 657-661
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ. The biology of biologics: basic science and clinical concepts. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (5) (Suppl. 02) 9S-17S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Annor AH, Tang ME, Pui CL , et al. Effect of enzymatic degradation on the mechanical properties of biological scaffold materials. Surg Endosc 2012; 26 (10) 2767-2778
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Patel KM, Bhanot P. Complications of acellular dermal matrices in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (5) (Suppl. 02) 216S-224S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 de Moya MA, Dunham M, Inaba K , et al. Long-term outcome of acellular dermal matrix when used for large traumatic open abdomen. J Trauma 2008; 65 (2) 349-353
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Foda M, Carlson MA. Enterocutaneous fistula associated with ePTFE mesh: case report and review of the literature. Hernia 2009; 13 (3) 323-326
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Roessner ED, Thier S, Hohenberger P , et al. Acellular dermal matrix seeded with autologous fibroblasts improves wound breaking strength in a rodent soft tissue damage model in neoadjuvant settings. J Biomater Appl 2011; 25 (5) 413-427
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Ono I. The effects of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) on the breaking strength of acute incisional wounds. J Dermatol Sci 2002; 29 (2) 104-113
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Chang PJ, Chen MY, Huang YS , et al. Morphine enhances tissue content of collagen and increases wound tensile strength. J Anesth 2010; 24 (2) 240-246
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Orenstein SB, Qiao Y, Kaur M, Klueh U, Kreutzer DL, Novitsky YW. Human monocyte activation by biologic and biodegradable meshes in vitro. Surg Endosc 2010; 24 (4) 805-811
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Choi JJ, Palaniappa NC, Dallas KB, Rudich TB, Colon MJ, Divino CM. Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases. Ann Surg 2012; 255 (1) 176-180
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Bellón JM, García-Carranza A, García-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martín A, Buján J. Tissue integration and biomechanical behaviour of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 2004; 91 (4) 489-494
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Mavros MN, Athanasiou S, Alexiou VG, Mitsikostas PK, Peppas G, Falagas ME. Risk factors for mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. World J Surg 2011; 35 (11) 2389-2398
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. Laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias. Surg Clin North Am 2005; 85 (1) 91-103 , ix
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Janfaza M, Martin M, Skinner R. A preliminary comparison study of two noncrosslinked biologic meshes used in complex ventral hernia repairs. World J Surg 2012; 36 (8) 1760-1764
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Kim H, Bruen K, Vargo D. Acellular dermal matrix in the management of high-risk abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg 2006; 192 (6) 705-709
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Harth KC, Blatnik JA, Anderson JM, Jacobs MR, Zeinali F, Rosen MJ. Effect of surgical wound classification on biologic graft performance in complex hernia repair: an experimental study. Surgery 2013; 153 (4) 481-492
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 2013; 257 (6) 991-996
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS. Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Surg 2013; 205 (1) 85-101
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Shankaran V, Weber DJ, Reed II RL, Luchette FA. A review of available prosthetics for ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 2011; 253 (1) 16-26
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Vrijland WW, Bonthuis F, Steyerberg EW, Marquet RL, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ. Peritoneal adhesions to prosthetic materials: choice of mesh for incisional hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2000; 14 (10) 960-963
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Beldi G, Wagner M, Bruegger LE, Kurmann A, Candinas D. Mesh shrinkage and pain in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial comparing suture versus tack mesh fixation. Surg Endosc 2011; 25 (3) 749-755
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Karabulut B, Sönmez K, Türkyilmaz Z , et al. Omentum prevents intestinal adhesions to mesh graft in abdominal infections and serosal defects. Surg Endosc 2006; 20 (6) 978-982
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Janis JE, O'Neill AC, Ahmad J, Zhong T, Hofer SO. Acellular dermal matrices in abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review of the current evidence. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (5) (Suppl. 02) 183S-193S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Jin J, Rosen MJ, Blatnik J , et al. Use of acellular dermal matrix for complicated ventral hernia repair: does technique affect outcomes?. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 205 (5) 654-660
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Venclauskas L, Maleckas A, Kiudelis M. One-year follow-up after incisional hernia treatment: results of a prospective randomized study. Hernia 2010; 14 (6) 575-582
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Sample Reimbursement Cases Available at: http://www.covidien.com/imageServer.aspx/doc187708.pdf?contentID=15216&contenttype=application/pdf
  PubMed
• 35 Ritter C. Optimizing Reimbursement for Biological Implants. Presented at: Michigan Ambulatory Surgery Association, 2013. ; Acme, Michigan
  Google Scholar
• 36 Hiles M, Record Ritchie RD, Altizer AM. Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair?: a systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov 2009; 16 (1) 26-37
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Itani K, Samir A, Baumann D , et al. Prospective multicenter clinical study of single-stage repair of infected or contaminated abdominal incisional hernias using StratticeTM Reconstructive Tissue Matrix. Poster presented at: American College of Surgeons 96th Clinical Congress; October 3–7, 2010 ; Washington, DC
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Hiles M, Briggs CM. The overall cost of complex ventral hernia repair with biologic grafts. General Surgery News 2010 . Available at: http://www.cookbiodesign.com/library/Cost_DispellingMyths.pdf
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Reynolds D, Davenport DL, Korosec RL, Roth JS. Financial implications of ventral hernia repair: a hospital cost analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17 (1) 159-166 , discussion 166–167
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Frangou C. Ventral hernia repairs a financial bust for hospitals? Money lost on most procedures at one facility. General Surgery News 2012;
  PubMedGoogle Scholar