RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Active smoking is related to wound and respiratory complications following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR), but no AWR studies directly compare outcomes of abstinent-smokers (AS), fulfilling four-weeks of smoking cessation, to non-smokers (NS). METHODS: Prospectively maintained institutional database was queried for all AWR between 2012 and 2019. AS and NS were included. Primary outcomes were wound and respiratory complications; secondary outcome was recurrence. Standard statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Evaluation included 1088 patients, 305 AS and 783 NS. AS had a lower BMI (31.3 vs 32.7 âkg/m2; P â= â0.004) but increased ASA Class III (51.5% vs 34.5 â%, P â= â0.009), COPD (8.9% vs 4.0 â%, P â= â0.001), comorbidities (6.3 vs 4.7, P < 0.001), and wound class (Class III/IV: 25.3% vs 15.8 â%, P â= â0.003). AS had increased defect size (229 vs 209.1 âcm2; P â= â0.023), use of component separation (CST) (52.5% vs 43.8 â%; P â= â0.010) and hospital stay (6.6 vs 6.2 days, P â= â0.015). Postoperative wound, mesh, and pulmonary infection, respiratory failure, and recurrence were similar. On multivariable regression, wound class and complications predicted recurrence. BMI, panniculectomy and CST predicted wound complications. BMI, CST, and wound class predicted respiratory complications. CONCLUSION: Despite greater patient and hernia complexity, smoking cessation appears to result in similar outcomes to never-smokers in this AWR population.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The choice of biologic compared with synthetic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction remains controversial, especially in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds. This study evaluated wound complications and hernia recurrence with a 2:1 propensity-matched sample and extended follow-up. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A prospectively maintained abdominal wall reconstruction database was queried for patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction using biologic or synthetic mesh in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds. Patients receiving synthetic or biologic mesh were propensity score matched in a 2:1 fashion. Univariate, bivariate, and inferential analyses were conducted. Unless stated, data are reported as biologic compared with synthetic. RESULTS: In total, 519 patients were compared, 173 with biologic and 346 with synthetic mesh. Defect size (215.2 ± 153.6 cm2 vs 251.5 ± 284.3 cm2), body mass index (33.6 ± 9 kg/m2 vs 34 ±17.7 kg/m2), and comorbidities were well matched (all P > .05). Although Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound class was used in the match, it was significantly different between groups (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1:43.4% vs 81.2%, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2:56.6% vs 18.8%; P < .001). The rate of component separation (40.1% vs 44.2%; P = .397), fascial closure (97.7% vs 98.3%; P = .738), and panniculectomy (33.5% vs 29.2%; P = .315) were similar. Mesh size was also similar (816.4 ± 555.5 vs 892.2 ± 487.8 cm2; P = .112). Wound complications were equal, including wound breakdown (10.5% vs 7.5%; P = .315), wound cellulitis (5.2% vs 5.8%; P = .843), wound infection (7.5% vs 4.6%; P = .223), seroma requiring intervention (6.4% vs 7.8%; P = .597), and mesh infection (1.2% vs 0.9%; P > .999). The biologic group had an increased length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 days vs 5.4 ± 2.3 days; P < .001) and greater hospital charges ($82,181 ± 50,356 vs $62,221 ± 26,817 USD; P < .001). Mean follow-up after biologic repair was longer (33.9 ± 36.6 months vs 23.3 ± 32.3 months; P < .001). Hernia recurrence between the biologic and synthetic groups was not significantly different (2.9% vs 1.4%; P = .313). On multivariable regression, wound complications were predictive of recurrence, and panniculectomy was predictive of wound complications. CONCLUSION: In a 2:1 matched analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1 and 2 wounds with nearly 3-years of follow-up, biologic and synthetic mesh had similar rates of wound complications and recurrence in abdominal wall reconstruction.