Search

Background: The use of biologic mesh to reinforce the abdominal wall in ventral hernia repair has been proposed as a viable alternative to synthetic mesh, particularly for high-risk patients and in contaminated settings. However, a comparison of clinical outcomes between the currently available biologic mesh types has yet to be performed., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 141 patients who had undergone ventral hernia repair with biologic mesh, including noncross-linked porcine ADM (NC-PADM) (n = 51), cross-linked porcine ADM (C-PADM) (n = 17), reinforced biologic ovine rumen (RBOR) (n = 36), and bovine ADM (BADM) (n = 37) at the Stanford University Medical Center between 2002 and 2020. Postoperative donor site complications and rates of hernia recurrence were compared between patients with different biologic mesh types., Results: Abdominal complications occurred in 47.1% of patients with NC-PADM, 52.9% of patients with C-PADM, 16.7% of patients with RBOR, and 43.2% of patients with BADM ( P = 0.015). Relative risk for overall complications was higher in patients who had received NC-PADM (RR = 2.64, P = 0.0182), C-PADM (RR = 3.19, P = 0.0127), and BADM (RR = 2.11, P = 0.0773) compared with those who had received RBOR. Furthermore, relative risk for hernia recurrence was also higher in all other mesh types compared with RBOR., Conclusion: Our data indicate that RBOR decreases abdominal complications and recurrence rates after ventral hernia repair compared with NC-PADM, C-PADM, and BADM., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article. The funding of this study was solely institutional., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)