Long-Term, Prospective, Multicenter Study of Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate Mesh (Phasix Mesh) for Hernia Repair in Cohort at Risk for Complication: 60-Month Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Long-term resorbable mesh represents a promising technology for ventral and incisional hernia repair (VIHR). This study evaluates poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh (P4HB; Phasix Mesh) among comorbid patients with CDC class I wounds. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective, multi-institutional study evaluated P4HB VIHR in comorbid patients with CDC class I wounds. Primary outcomes included hernia recurrence and surgical site infection. Secondary outcomes included pain, device-related adverse events, quality of life, reoperation, procedure time, and length of stay. Evaluations were scheduled at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, and 60 months. A time-to-event analysis (Kaplan-Meier) was performed for primary outcomes; secondary outcomes were reported as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients (46 male, 75 female) 54.7 ± 12.0 years old with a BMI of 32.2 ± 4.5 kg/m 2 underwent VIHR with P4HB Mesh (mean ± SD). Fifty-four patients (44.6%) completed the 60-month follow-up. Primary outcomes (Kaplan-Meier estimates at 60 months) included recurrence (22.0 ± 4.5%; 95% CI 11.7% to 29.4%) and surgical site infection (10.1 ± 2.8%; 95% CI 3.3 to 14.0). Secondary outcomes included seroma requiring intervention (n = 9), procedure time (167.9 ± 82.5 minutes), length of stay (5.3 ± 5.3 days), reoperation (18 of 121, 14.9%), visual analogue scale-pain (change from baseline -3.16 ± 3.35 cm at 60 months; n = 52), and Carolinas Comfort Total Score (change from baseline -24.3 ± 21.4 at 60 months; n = 52). CONCLUSIONS: Five-year outcomes after VIHR with P4HB mesh were associated with infrequent complications and durable hernia repair outcomes. This study provides a framework for anticipated long-term hernia repair outcomes when using P4HB mesh.

Prospective, multicenter study of P4HB (Phasix™) mesh for hernia repair in cohort at risk for complications: 3-Year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: This study represents a prospective, multicenter, open-label study to assess the safety, performance, and outcomes of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB, Phasix™) mesh for primary ventral, primary incisional, or multiply-recurrent hernia in subjects at risk for complications. This study reports 3-year clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: P4HB mesh was implanted in 121 patients via retrorectus or onlay technique. Physical exam and/or quality of life surveys were completed at 1, 3, 6,12, 18, 24, and 36 months, with 5-year (60-month) follow-up ongoing. RESULTS: A total of n = 121 patients were implanted with P4HB mesh (n = 75 (62%) female) with a mean age of 54.7 ± 12.0 years and mean BMI of 32.2 ± 4.5 kg/m2 (±standard deviation). Comorbidities included: obesity (78.5%), active smokers (23.1%), COPD (28.1%), diabetes mellitus (33.1%), immunosuppression (8.3%), coronary artery disease (21.5%), chronic corticosteroid use (5.0%), hypo-albuminemia (2.5%), advanced age (5.0%), and renal insufficiency (0.8%). Hernias were repaired via retrorectus (n = 45, 37.2% with myofascial release (MR) or n = 43, 35.5% without MR), onlay (n = 8, 6.6% with MR or n = 24, 19.8% without MR), or not reported (n = 1, 0.8%). 82 patients (67.8%) completed 36-month follow-up. 17 patients (17.9% ± 0.4%) experienced hernia recurrence at 3 years, with n = 9 in the retrorectus group and n = 8 in the onlay group. SSI (n = 11) occurred in 9.3% ± 0.03% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes following ventral hernia repair with P4HB mesh demonstrate low recurrence rates at 3-year (36-month) postoperative time frame with no patients developing late mesh complications or requiring mesh removal. 5-year (60-month) follow-up is ongoing.

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has increased in recent years, but randomized or prospective studies comparing outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and Robotic-IHR are still lacking. With conflicting results from only five retrospective series available in the literature comparing the two approaches, the question remains whether current robotic technology provides any added benefits to treat inguinal hernias. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of Robotic-IHR versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal IHR (Laparoscopic-IHR). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent Robotic-IHR or Laparoscopic-IHR at a dedicated MIS unit in the USA from February 2015 to June 2017. Demographics, anthropometrics, the proportion of bilateral and recurrent hernias, operative details, cost, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and rates and severity of complications were compared. RESULTS: 183 patients had surgery: 45 (24.6%) Robotic-IHR and 138 (75.4%) Laparoscopic-IHR. There were no differences between groups in age, gender, BMI, ASA class, the proportion of bilateral hernias and recurrent hernias, and length of stay. Operative time (Robotic-IHR: 116 ± 36 min, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 95±44 min, p < 0.01), reoperations (Robotic-IHR: 6.7%, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01), and readmissions rates were greater for Robotic-IHR. While the overall perioperative complication rate was similar in between groups (Robotic-IHR: 28.9% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 18.1%, p = 0.14), Robotic-IHR was associated with a significantly greater proportion of grades III and IV complications (Robotic-IHR: 6.7% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01). Total hospital cost was significantly higher for the Robotic-IHRs ($9993 vs. $5994, p < 0.01). The added cost associated with the robotic device itself was $3106 per case and the total cost of disposable supplies was comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting in which it was studied, the outcomes of Laparoscopic-IHR were significantly superior to the Robotic-IHR, at lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic-IHR remains the preferred minimally invasive surgical approach to treat inguinal hernias.