首页> 外文期刊>Surgical infections >Synthetic versus Biologic Mesh for Complex Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
【24h】

Synthetic versus Biologic Mesh for Complex Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

机译:合成与复合腹膜疝修复的合成与生物网格:试点随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Many surgeons utilize biologic mesh for elective complex ventral hernia repair (VHR; large hernias, contaminated fields, or patients with comorbid conditions). However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biologic and synthetic mesh. We hypothesize biologic mesh would result in fewer major complications at one-year post-operative compared with synthetic mesh.Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center, pilot RCT. All eligible patients undergoing complex, open VHR were randomly assigned to receive biologic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular position. Primary outcome was major complications, namely, a composite of mesh infection, recurrence, or re-operation at one-year post-operative. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections (SSI), seromas, hematomas, wound dehiscence, re-admissions, and Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Outcomes were assessed using Fisher exact test and Bayesian generalized linear models.Results: Of 87 patients, 44 were randomly assigned to biologic mesh and 43 to synthetic mesh. Most cases were wound class 2–4 (68%) and 75% had a hernia width 4 cm. Most patients were obese (70%) and had an American Society of Anesthesiogists (ASA) score of 3–4 (53%). Compared with patients in the synthetic mesh group, patients in the biologic mesh group had a higher percentage of: major complications at one-year post-operative (42.4% vs. 21.6%; relative risk [RR] = 1.96 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.94–4.08]; number needed to harm = 4.8; p = 0.071); SSI (15.9% vs. 9.3%; RR = 1.71 [95% CI = 0.54–5.42]; p = 0.362); wound dehiscence (25.0% vs. 14.0%; RR = 1.79 [95% CI = 0.73–4.41]; p = 0.205); and re-admissions (22.7% vs 9.3%; RR = 2.44 [95% CI = 0.83–7.20]; p = 0.105). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that compared with synthetic mesh, biologic mesh had a 95% probability of increased risk of major complications at one-year post-operative. No clear evidence of a difference was found on seromas, hematomas, or Clavien-Dindo complication grade.Conclusions: In elective complex open VHR, biologic mesh demonstrated no benefit compared with synthetic mesh in one-year outcomes. Moreover, Bayesian analysis suggests that biologic mesh may have an increased probability of major complications.
机译:背景:许多外科医生利用生物网的选择性复杂腹膜疝修复(VHR;大疝,受污染的田地或合并条件的患者)。然而,没有随机对照试验(RCT)已经比较了生物和合成网。我们假设生物网格将导致与合成网格和方法相比的一年手术后的一年后的主要并发症会导致较少的重复症:我们执行了单一中心,飞行员RCT。随机分配所有符合条件的患者,开放的VHR,接收放置在逆床位置的生物学或合成网。主要结果是主要的并发症,即在术后一年的综合性感染,复发或重新运行的综合性。二次结果包括手术部位感染(SSI),血清瘤,血肿,伤口裂开,重新入学和Clavien-DINDO并发症等级。使用Fisher精确测试和Bayesian广义线性模型评估结果。结果:87名患者,将44例随机分配给生物网状网和合成网格。大多数病例均卷绕2-4级(68%),75%的疝宽度& 4厘米。大多数患者肥胖(70%),并拥有美国麻醉师学会(ASA)得分为3-4(53%)。与合成网集团的患者相比,生物网集团患者的患者较高百分比:术后一年后的主要并发症(42.4%与21.6%;相对风险[RR] = 1.96 [95%置信区间{Ci} = 0.94-4.08];伤害所需的号码= 4.8; p = 0.071); SSI(15.9%与9.3%; RR = 1.71 [95%CI = 0.54-5.42]; P = 0.362);伤口裂开(25.0%vs.14.0%; RR = 1.79 [95%CI = 0.73-4.41]; P = 0.205);并重新入院(22.7%vs 9.3%; RR = 2.44 [95%CI = 0.83-7.20]; p = 0.105)。贝叶斯分析表明,与合成网格相比,生物网格术后一年后主要并发症的风险增加了95%。没有明确的证据显示在血清瘤,血肿或克拉夫 - DINDO并发症等级上发现了差异。结论:在选修复合VHR中,与一年成果中的合成网相比,生物网状物无益。此外,贝叶斯分析表明,生物网格可能会增加主要并发症的概率。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Surgical infections》 |2021年第5期|496-503|共8页
  • 作者单位

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston|Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston|Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston|Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston|Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston|Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

    Department of Surgery McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston|Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

  • 收录信息 美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    biologic mesh; polypropylene; randomized controlled trial; synthetic mesh; ventral hernia repair;

    机译:生物网格;聚丙烯;随机对照试验;合成网格;腹疝修补;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号