Dataset Information

Open ventral hernia repair with a composite ventral patch - final results of a multicenter prospective study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study assessed clinical outcomes, including safety and recurrence, from the two-year follow-up of patients who underwent open ventral primary hernia repair with the use of the Parietex™ Composite Ventral Patch (PCO-VP). METHODS:A prospective single-arm, multicenter study of 126 patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair for umbilical and epigastric hernias with the PCO-VP was performed. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-six subjects (110 with umbilical hernia and 16 with epigastric hernia) with a mean hernia diameter of 1.8?cm (0.4-4.0) were treated with PCO-VP. One hundred subjects completed the two-year study. Cumulative hernia recurrence was 3.0% (3/101; 95%CI: 0.0-6.3%) within 24?months. Median Numeric Rating Scale pain scores improved from 2 [0-10] at baseline to 0 [0-3] at 1 month (P?

SUBMITTER: Berrevoet F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6633695 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Open ventral hernia repair with a composite ventral patch - final results of a multicenter prospective study.

Berrevoet F F Doerhoff C C Muysoms F F Hopson S S Muzi M G MG Nienhuijs S S Kullman E E Tollens T T Schwartz M M Leblanc K K Velanovich V V Jørgensen L N LN

BMC surgery 20190716 1

<h4>Background</h4>This study assessed clinical outcomes, including safety and recurrence, from the two-year follow-up of patients who underwent open ventral primary hernia repair with the use of the Parietex™ Composite Ventral Patch (PCO-VP).<h4>Methods</h4>A prospective single-arm, multicenter study of 126 patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair for umbilical and epigastric hernias with the PCO-VP was performed.<h4>Results</h4>One hundred twenty-six subjects (110 with umbilical hernia a ...[more]

PMID: 31311545

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair. DESIGN:Pragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Multidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA. PARTICIPANTS:124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019. INTERVENTIONS:Robotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat. RESULTS:Patients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P?0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15?865 (£12?746; €14?125) v $12?955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair. CONCLUSION:This study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.

Project description:Background:The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR. Methods/Design:The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1-5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence. Discussion:Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills.In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR. Trial registration:The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The objective of this study was to evaluate the mechanical and histological properties of a fully absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate/absorbable barrier composite mesh (Phasix™ ST) compared to partially absorbable (Ventralight™ ST), fully absorbable (Phasix™), and biologically derived (Strattice™) meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. METHODS:Bilateral abdominal surgical defects were created in twenty-four Yucatan pigs, repaired with intraperitoneal (Phasix™ ST, Ventralight™ ST) or retromuscular (Phasix™, Strattice™) mesh, and evaluated at 12 and 24 weeks (n = 6 mesh/group/time point). RESULTS:Prior to implantation, Strattice™ demonstrated significantly higher (p < 0.001) strength (636.6 ± 192.1 N) compared to Ventralight™ ST (324.3 ± 37.1 N), Phasix™ ST (206.9 ± 11.3 N), and Phasix™ (200.6 ± 25.2 N). At 12 and 24 weeks, mesh/repair strength was significantly greater than NAW (p < 0.01 in all cases), and no significant changes in strength were observed for any meshes between 12 and 24 weeks (p > 0.05). Phasix™ mesh/repair strength was significantly greater than Strattice™ (p < 0.001) at 12 and 24 weeks, and Ventralight™ ST mesh/repair strength was significantly greater than Phasix™ ST mesh (p < 0.05) at 24 weeks. At 12 and 24 weeks, Phasix™ ST and Ventralight™ ST were associated with mild inflammation and minimal-mild fibrosis/neovascularization, with no significant differences between groups. At both time points, Phasix™ was associated with minimal-mild inflammation/fibrosis and mild neovascularization. Strattice™ was associated with minimal inflammation/fibrosis, with minimal neovascularization at 12 weeks, which increased to mild by 24 weeks. Strattice™ exhibited significantly less neovascularization than Phasix™ at 12 weeks and significantly greater inflammation at 24 weeks due to remodeling. CONCLUSIONS:Phasix™ ST demonstrated mechanical and histological properties comparable to partially absorbable (Ventralight™ ST) and fully resorbable (Phasix™) meshes at 12 and 24 weeks in this model. Data also suggest that fully absorbable meshes with longer-term resorption profiles may provide improved mechanical and histological properties compared to biologically derived scaffolds.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernias has gained popularity since many studies have reported encouraging results in terms of outcomee and recurrence. Choice of mesh and fixation methods are considered crucial issues in preventing recurrences and complications. Lightweight meshes are considered the first choice due to their biomechanical properties and the ability to integrate into the abdominal wall. Titanium helicoidal tacks still represent the "gold standard" for mesh fixation, even if they have been suggested to be involved in the genesis of post-operative pain and complications. Recently, absorbable tacks have been introduced, under the hypothesis that there will be no need to maintain a permanent fixation device after mesh integration. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that absorbable tacks may guarantee the same results as titanium tacks in terms of strength of fixation and recurrence rates. The primary end point of the present trial is to test the hypothesis that absorbable tacks are non-inferior to titanium tacks in laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) by lightweight polypropylene mesh, in terms of recurrence rates at 3-year follow-up. Surgical complications, post-operative stay, comfort and pain are secondary end points to be assessed. METHODS/DESIGN:Two hundred and twenty patients with ventral hernia will be randomized into 2 groups: Group A (110) patients will be submitted to LIVHR by lightweight polypropylene mesh fixed by titanium tacks; Group B (110) patients will be submitted to LIVHR by lightweight polypropylene mesh fixed by absorbable tacks. DISCUSSION:A few retrospective studies have reported similar results when comparing absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks in terms of intraoperative and early post-operative outcomes. These studies have the pitfalls to be retrospective evaluation of small series of patients, and the reported results still need to be validated by larger series and prospective studies. The aim of the present trial is to investigate and test the non-inferiority of absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks in terms of hernia recurrence rates, in order to assess whether the use of absorbable tacks may achieve the same results as non-absorbable tacks in mid-term and long-term settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02076984: 5 June 2014 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Dataset Information

Open ventral hernia repair with a composite ventral patch - final results of a multicenter prospective study.

Publications

Open ventral hernia repair with a composite ventral patch - final results of a multicenter prospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets