Bovine versus porcine acellular dermal matrix for abdominal wall herniorrhaphy or bridging.

BACKGROUND: The management of complicated ventral hernias (CVH), namely ventral hernias in actively or recently infected/contaminated operative fields, and open abdomens in which the native fascia cannot be primarily reapproximated, pose a surgical challenge. Fetal Bovine and Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix (BADM and PADM) biologic meshes are being increasingly used in these scenarios. A comparison, however, of clinically relevant outcomes between the two is lacking. With this investigation, we aim to review and compare clinically relevant outcomes in patients that underwent abdominal wall herniorrhaphy with either BADM or PADM at a tertiary urban academic institution over a 5-year period. METHODS: Patients who had a BADM or PADM implanted during CVH over a 5-year period at a tertiary urban academic hospital were identified. Baseline clinical and hernia characteristics, as well as postoperative outcomes were compared after a retrospective chart review. Phone interviews were also conducted to assess for recurrence, followed by in-person visits as indicated. Cox Proportional Hazard regression was fitted to identify risk factors for recurrence. RESULTS: Of the 140 patients who underwent biologic mesh implantation for CVH, 109 were for ventral hernia repair and 31 for open abdomen bridging. Mean age was 52.7 ± 14.2 and males constituted 57.9% of our sample, while 25.1% had undergone > 5 prior abdominal operations. Thirty percent were active smokers, and another 30% required emergency surgery. Only immunosuppression was a risk factor for recurrence [HR 13.3 (1.04-169.2), p = 0.047] on Cox Proportional Hazard regression, while mesh selection had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Both BADM and PADM meshes perform well in CVH, with satisfactory recurrence rates, only slightly higher compared to traditional synthetic mesh repairs.

One Versus 2-Stage Revision for Shoulder Arthroplasty Infections: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Treatment Selection Bias.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the optimal treatment for infection following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the bias in treatment selection, infection clearance rates, and functional outcomes after 1 versus 2-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic shoulder infections. METHODS: A systematic search strategy following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in 4 phases. Articles were identified using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), and Cochrane Library databases with Boolean search terms related to infection after shoulder arthroplasty. Included articles were analyzed for quality, and data were extracted for use. Preoperative treatment selection bias was analyzed and postoperative infection clearance rates and functional outcome scores were compared between 1 and 2-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic shoulder infection. RESULTS: Overall, 163 1-stage shoulder procedures and 289 2-stage shoulder procedures were included in the analysis. Cutibacterium acnes was the organism most frequently grown on culture (37%) followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (19%). The overall infection clearance rate was 95.6% for 1-stage and 85.2% for 2-stage procedures. In a comparison of the change in outcome scores from preoperatively to postoperatively between 1-stage and 2-stage revision, the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) improved 21.0 points (1-stage) versus 22.8 points (2-stage), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score improved 26.2 points versus 33.6 points, and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score improved 3.5 points versus 6.4 points, respectively. Overall, 23 of 26 studies cited a reason for selection of a 1 versus 2-stage procedure, which was due to standard treatment protocol in 10 studies, based on the timing of the infection (acute versus subacute versus chronic) in 5, due to a combination of factors (age, comorbidities, intraoperative appearance, adequacy of debridement, bone loss) in 6, and due to preoperative identification of a specific organism in 2. CONCLUSIONS: One-stage revisions resulted in higher infection clearance rates; however, 2-stage revisions resulted in greater functional improvement as measured with ASES and SST scores from the preoperative assessment to the final postoperative follow-up. The decision between 1 and 2-stage revisions is due to a combination of factors including pathogen type, timing of infection, findings on the preoperative clinical examination, the patient's own decision, the surgeon's preference, and the intraoperative soft-tissue/osseous appearance, which may have biased the overall results. There is no consensus in the literature on the decision between 1 and 2-stage treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infection, which is based on a combination of factors. However, both treatment strategies are effective in treating periprosthetic shoulder infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The effect of anticoagulation on outcomes after liver and spleen injuries: A research consortium of New England centers for trauma (ReCONECT) study.

BACKGROUND: Liver and spleen injuries are the most commonly injured solid organs, the effects of anticoagulation on these injuries has not yet been well characterized. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective study. RESULT: During the 4-year study period, 1254 patients, 64 (5%) on anticoagulation (AC), were admitted with liver and/or splenic injury. 58% of patients had a splenic injury, 53% had a liver injury and 11% had both. Patients on AC were older than non-AC patients (mean age 60.9 vs. 38.6 years, p < 0.001). The most common AC drug was warfarin (70%) with atrial fibrillation (47%) the most common indication for AC. There was no significant difference in AAST injury grade between AC and non-AC patients (median grade 2), but AC patients required a blood product transfusion more commonly (58 vs 40%, p = 0.007) particularly FFP (4 vs 19%, p < 0.01). Among those transfused, non-AC patients required slightly more PRBC (5.7 vs 3.8 units, p = 0.018) but similar amount of FFP (3.2 vs 3.1 units, p = 0.92). The two groups had no significant difference in the rates of initial non-operative management (50% (AC) vs 56% (non-AC), p = 0.3)) or failure of non-operative management (7 vs 4%, p = 0.16). AC patients were more likely to be managed initially with angiography (36 vs 20%, p = 0.001) while non-AC patients with surgery (24% vs 13%, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in LOS and mortality. CONCLUSION: The use of anticoagulation did not result in a difference in outcomes among patients with spleen and/or liver injuries.