Analysis of retromuscular drain output and postoperative outcomes for heavyweight versus mediumweight polypropylene mesh following open ventral hernia repair.

PURPOSE: Heavyweight polypropylene (HWPP) mesh is thought to increase inflammatory response and delay tissue integration compared to mediumweight (MWPP). Reactive fluid volume (i.e., drain output) may be a reasonable surrogate for integration. We hypothesized that daily drain output is higher with HWPP compared to MWPP in open retromuscular ventral hernia repair (VHR). METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted March 2017-April 2019 comparing MWPP and HWPP for VHR. Retromuscular drain output in milliliters was measured at 24-h intervals up to postoperative day seven. Univariate analyses compared differences in daily drain output and time to drain removal. Multivariable analyses compared total drain output and wound morbidity within 30 days and hernia recurrence at 1 year. RESULTS: 288 patients were included; 140 (48.6%) HWPP and 148 (51.4%) MWPP. Daily drain output for days 1-3 was higher for HWPP vs. MWPP (total volume: 837.8 mL vs. 656.5 mL) (p < 0.001), but similar on days 4-7 (p > 0.05). Median drain removal time was 5 days for both groups. Total drain output was not predictive of 30-day wound morbidity (p > 0.05) or hernia recurrence at 1 year (OR 1, p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: While HWPP mesh initially had higher drain outputs, it rapidly returned to levels similar to MWPP by postoperative day three and there was no difference in clinical outcomes. We believe that drains placed around HWPP mesh can be managed similarly to MWPP mesh.

Biologic mesh use practice patterns in abdominal wall reconstruction: a lack of consensus among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of ventral hernias, there is little agreement as to the most appropriate technique or prosthetic to repair these defects. Our objective was to determine biologic mesh practice patterns of reconstructive surgeons with regard to indications, most appropriate technique, choice of prosthetic, and experience with complications. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 2,000 practicing surgeons. Main outcome measures included surgeon experience with biologic mesh and associated complications. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty (12 %) surgeons responded to the survey. Ten were excluded, as surgeons completing the survey indicated they did not perform ventral hernia repairs or left multiple questions unanswered. Of the 230 included, 93.5 % (n = 215) of responders had experience using biologic mesh. Frequency of biologic graft use in the last year was as follows: low-volume users (<5 times in the last year) 50.7 %; medium-volume users (5-20 times in the last year) 37.3 %; high-volume users (>20 times in the last year) 11.9 %. Indications for biologic mesh use based on wound classifications (clean, clean contaminated, contaminated or dirty) were quite varied and lacked consensus among surgeons (p value < 0.05). The most commonly reported influences for use included personal experience (45 %), literature (28.3 %), and availability (17.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of level 1 evidence, biologic meshes are being used under various wound classifications. Importantly, use in clean and dirty-infected settings may reflect an inappropriate overuse of these expensive materials. To better guide surgeons, prospective, randomized trials should be undertaken to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes associated with these materials under the various surgical wound classifications.