Search

Introduction: Information on the long-term performance of biosynthetic meshes is scarce. This study analyses the performance of biosynthetic mesh (Phasix™) over 24 months. Methods: A prospective, international European multi-center trial is described. Adult patients with a Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) grade 3 incisional hernia larger than 10 cm2, scheduled for elective repair, were included. Biosynthetic mesh was placed in sublay position. Short-term outcomes included 3-month surgical site occurrences (SSO), and long-term outcomes comprised hernia recurrence, reoperation, and quality of life assessments until 24 months. Results: Eighty-four patients were treated with biosynthetic mesh. Twenty-two patients (26.2%) developed 34 SSOs, of which 32 occurred within 3 months (primary endpoint). Eight patients (11.0%) developed a hernia recurrence. In 13 patients (15.5%), 14 reoperations took place, of which 6 were performed for hernia recurrence (42.9%), 3 for mesh infection (21.4%), and in 7 of which the mesh was explanted (50%). Compared to baseline, quality of life outcomes showed no significant difference after 24 months. Despite theoretical resorption, 10.7% of patients reported presence of mesh sensation in daily life 24 months after surgery. Conclusion: After 2 years of follow-up, hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh shows manageable SSO rates and favorable recurrence rates in VHWG grade 3 patients. No statistically significant improvement in quality of life or reduction of pain was observed. Few patients report lasting presence of mesh sensation. Results of biosynthetic mesh after longer periods of follow-up on recurrences and remodeling will provide further valuable information to make clear recommendations. Trial registration: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02720042), March 25, 2016.

Background No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for ‘loss of domain’ (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. Methods A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. Results Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. Conclusions Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities.

Background No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for ‘loss of domain’ (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. Methods A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. Results Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. Conclusions Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities.

Background No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for ‘loss of domain’ (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. Methods A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. Results Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. Conclusions Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities.

Background: Incisional heia is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy. The use of mesh in hernia repair has been reported to lead to fewer recurrences compared to primary repair. However, in Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) Grade 3 hernia patients, whose hernia is potentially contaminated, synthetic mesh is prone to infection. There is a strong preference for resorbable biological mesh in contaminated fields, since it is more able to resist infection, and because it is fully resorbed, the chance of a foreign body reaction is reduced. However, when not crosslinked, biological resorbable mesh products tend to degrade too quickly to facilitate native cellular ingrowth. Phasix™ Mesh is a biosynthetic mesh with both the biocompatibility and resorbability of a biological mesh and the mechanical strength of a synthetic mesh. This multi-center single-arm study aims to collect data on safety and performance of Phasix™ Mesh in Grade 3 hernia patients. Methods: A total of 85 VHWG Grade 3 hernia patients will be treated with Phasix™ Mesh in 15 sites across Europe. The primary outcome is Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO) including hematoma, seroma, infection, dehiscence and fistula formation (requiring intervention) through 3 months. Secondary outcomes include recurrence, infection and quality of life related outcomes after 24 months. Follow-up visits will be at drain removal (if drains were not placed, then on discharge or staple removal instead) and in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, 18th and 24th month after surgery. Conclusion: Based on evidence from this clinical study Depending on the results this clinical study will yield, Phasix™ Mesh may become a preferred treatment option in VHWG Grade 3 patients. Trial registration: The trial was registered on March 25, 2016 on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02720042.