Quality of life measures and cost analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh for ventral hernia repair: The Preventing Recurrence in Clean and Contaminated Hernias randomized clinical trial.

Background: Although the most durable method for ventral hernia repairs involves using mesh, whether to use biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh remains controversial. This study aimed to compare synthetic and biologic meshes with respect to patient-reported quality of life scores and costs after ventral hernia repair surgeries.
Methods: This study is part of the Preventing Recurrence in Clean and Contaminated Hernias (PRICE) pragmatic randomized control trial conducted from March 2014 through October 2018. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo ventral hernia repair using either a biologic or synthetic mesh. The coprimary outcomes were 2-year changes in Visual Analog Scale, Activities Assessment Scale, Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey, and Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) quality-of-life scores from repair. The secondary outcome was the overall cost per patient.
Results: Among the 165 patients included in the study, 82 were randomized to biologic meshes and 83 to synthetic meshes. There were no significant differences in the performance between the 2 mesh types with regard to quality-of-life measures using a mixed model approach. This result was consistent even when performing subgroup analysis based on wound contamination. However, nonparametric tests comparing the differences in quality-of-life measures from preoperative to 24-month postoperative timepoints revealed that the synthetic mesh group showed a greater reduction in disability than biologic mesh for the SF-36 (median [interquartile range] of 20 [5-30] vs 6 [1-20], P = .025). This difference was due to reductions in the physical role limitations (62 [0-100] vs 0 [0-50], P = .018) and the pain (38 [12-50] vs 12 [0-25], P = .012) domains of the SF-36. Overall cost per patient was greater for biologic meshes (mean [95% confidence interval] of $80,420 [$66,485-$94,355] vs $61,036 [$48,946-$73,125], P = .038), regardless of insurance type.
Conclusion: In this randomized clinical trial, there were no differences in changes in quality-of-life scores at the 2-year timepoint except for the SF-36, where the synthetic mesh may be associated with less pain and physical role limitations than the biologic mesh. Overall costs per patient were less for synthetic than biologic mesh.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)