Evaluation of 30-day outcomes for open ventral hernia repair using self-gripping versus nonself-gripping mesh.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh is standard of care for large ventral hernias repaired on an elective basis. The most used type of mesh includes synthetic polypropylene mesh; however, there has been an increase in the usage of a new polyester self-gripping mesh, and there are limited data regarding its efficacy for ventral hernia. The purpose of the study is to determine whether there is a difference in surgical site occurrence (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), and recurrence at 30 days after ventral hernia repair (VHR) using self-gripping (SGM) versus non-self-gripping mesh (NSGM). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study from January 2014 to April 2022 using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC). We collected data on patients over 18 years of age who underwent elective open VHR using SGM or NSGM and whom had 30-day follow-up. Propensity matching was utilized to control for variables including hernia width, body mass index, age, ASA, and mesh location. Data were analyzed to identify differences in SSO, SSI, SSOPI, and recurrence at 30 days. RESULTS: 9038 patients were identified. After propensity matching, 1766 patients were included in the study population. Patients with SGM had similar demographic and clinical characteristics compared to NSGM. The mean hernia width to mesh width ratio was 8 cm:18 cm with NSGM and 7 cm:15 cm with SGM (p = 0.63). There was no difference in 30-day rates of recurrence, SSI or SSO. The rate of SSOPI was also found to be 5.4% in the nonself-gripping group compared to 3.1% in the self-gripping mesh group (p < .005). There was no difference in patient-reported outcomes at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing ventral hernia repair with mesh, self-gripping mesh is a safe type of mesh to use. Use of self-gripping mesh may be associated with lower rates of SSOPI when compared to nonself-gripping mesh.

3D aneurysm wall enhancement is associated with symptomatic presentation.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysm wall enhancement (AWE) is a potential surrogate biomarker for aneurysm instability. Previous studies have assessed AWE using 2D multiplanar methods, most of which were conducted qualitatively. OBJECTIVE: To use a new quantitative tool to analyze a large cohort of saccular aneurysms with 3D-AWE maps METHODS: Saccular aneurysms were imaged prospectively with 3T high resolution MRI. 3D-AWE maps of symptomatic (defined as ruptured or presentation with sentinel headache/cranial nerve neuropathy) and asymptomatic aneurysms were created by extending orthogonal probes from the aneurysm lumen into the wall. Three metrics were used to characterize enhancement: 3D circumferential AWE (3D-CAWE), aneurysm-specific contrast uptake (SAWE), and focal AWE (FAWE). Aneurysms with a circumferential AWE higher than the corpus callosum (3D-CAWE ≥1) were classified as 3D-CAWE+. Symptomatic presentation was analyzed with univariate and multivariate logistic models. Aneurysm size, size ratio, aspect ratio, irregular morphology, and PHASES and ELAPSS scores were compared with the new AWE metrics. Bleb and microhemorrhage analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Ninety-three aneurysms were analyzed. 3D-CAWE, SAWE, and FAWE were associated with symptomatic status (OR=1.34, 1.25, and 1.08, respectively). A multivariate model including aneurysm size, 3D-CAWE+, age, female gender, and FAWE detected symptomatic status with 80% specificity and 90% sensitivity (area under the curve=0.914, =0.967). FAWE was also associated with irregular morphology and high-risk location (p=0.043 and p=0.001, respectively). In general, blebs enhanced 56% more than the aneurysm body. Areas of microhemorrhage co-localized with areas of increased SAWE (p=0.047). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-AWE mapping provides a new set of metrics that could potentially improve the identification of symptomatic aneurysms.