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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |