Cargando…

Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the outcome of perineal hernia repair with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHOD: All consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with a porcine acellular dermal mesh between 2010 and 2014 were included. Follow-up was pe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Musters, G. D., Lapid, O., Stoker, J., Musters, B. F., Bemelman, W. A., Tanis, P. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Paris 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023741/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27240846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1504-8
_version_ 1782453677588480000
author Musters, G. D.
Lapid, O.
Stoker, J.
Musters, B. F.
Bemelman, W. A.
Tanis, P. J.
author_facet Musters, G. D.
Lapid, O.
Stoker, J.
Musters, B. F.
Bemelman, W. A.
Tanis, P. J.
author_sort Musters, G. D.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the outcome of perineal hernia repair with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHOD: All consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with a porcine acellular dermal mesh between 2010 and 2014 were included. Follow-up was performed by clinical examination and MRI. RESULTS: Fifteen patients underwent perineal hernia repair after a median of 25 months from APR. Four patients had a concomitant contaminated perineal defect, for which a gluteal fasciocutaneous flap was added in three patients. Wound infection occurred in three patients. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 12–24), a clinically recurrent perineal hernia developed in 7 patients (47 %): 6 of 11 patients after a non-cross-linked mesh and 1 of 4 patients after a cross-linked mesh (p = 0.57). Routine MRI at a median of 17 months revealed a recurrent perineal hernia in 7 of 10 evaluable patients, with clinical confirmation of recurrence in 5 of these 7 patients. No recurrent hernia was observed in the three patients with combined flap reconstruction for contaminated perineal defects. CONCLUSION: A high recurrence rate was observed after biological mesh repair of a perineal hernia following APR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5023741
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Paris
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50237412016-09-27 Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair? Musters, G. D. Lapid, O. Stoker, J. Musters, B. F. Bemelman, W. A. Tanis, P. J. Hernia Original Article PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the outcome of perineal hernia repair with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHOD: All consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with a porcine acellular dermal mesh between 2010 and 2014 were included. Follow-up was performed by clinical examination and MRI. RESULTS: Fifteen patients underwent perineal hernia repair after a median of 25 months from APR. Four patients had a concomitant contaminated perineal defect, for which a gluteal fasciocutaneous flap was added in three patients. Wound infection occurred in three patients. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 12–24), a clinically recurrent perineal hernia developed in 7 patients (47 %): 6 of 11 patients after a non-cross-linked mesh and 1 of 4 patients after a cross-linked mesh (p = 0.57). Routine MRI at a median of 17 months revealed a recurrent perineal hernia in 7 of 10 evaluable patients, with clinical confirmation of recurrence in 5 of these 7 patients. No recurrent hernia was observed in the three patients with combined flap reconstruction for contaminated perineal defects. CONCLUSION: A high recurrence rate was observed after biological mesh repair of a perineal hernia following APR. Springer Paris 2016-05-30 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5023741/ /pubmed/27240846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1504-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Musters, G. D.
Lapid, O.
Stoker, J.
Musters, B. F.
Bemelman, W. A.
Tanis, P. J.
Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?
title Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?
title_full Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?
title_fullStr Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?
title_full_unstemmed Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?
title_short Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?
title_sort is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023741/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27240846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1504-8
work_keys_str_mv AT mustersgd isthereaplaceforabiologicalmeshinperinealherniarepair
AT lapido isthereaplaceforabiologicalmeshinperinealherniarepair
AT stokerj isthereaplaceforabiologicalmeshinperinealherniarepair
AT mustersbf isthereaplaceforabiologicalmeshinperinealherniarepair
AT bemelmanwa isthereaplaceforabiologicalmeshinperinealherniarepair
AT tanispj isthereaplaceforabiologicalmeshinperinealherniarepair