Hernia Recurrence and Complications After Abdominal Reconstruction With Reinforced Versus Nonreinforced Biologic Mesh

Introduction: Both biologic and permanent (synthetic) meshes are used for abdominal wall reconstruction. Biologic mesh has the advantage of eventual incorporation, which makes it generally preferred in contaminated patients compared with synthetic mesh (Ann Surg. 2013;257:991-996). However, synthetic mesh has been shown to have decreased long-term hernia recurrence despite increased complications (JAMA Surg. 2022;157:293-301). Ovitex (TelaBio, Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand) is a combined reinforced biologic mesh with a permanent Prolene suture weave that theoretically combines incorporation with a long-term strength component. We hypothesize that a reinforced biologic will have a similar complication profile but decreased long-term hernia recurrence. Methods: A single-center retrospective review was performed from January 2013 to January 2022. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes including 90-day complications and recurrence were compared. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed with chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, respectively. Predictors of postoperative complications and hernia recurrence were analyzed via univariate logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression with backward stepwise selection with a threshold of P < 0.2. Results: Two hundred fifty-four patients underwent abdominal wall reconstruction biologic mesh (Strattice, Allergan; FlexHD, MTF Biologics; Alloderm, Allergan; Surgisis Gold, Cook Biotech; Ovitex, Telabio) with retrorectus (66.5%) or intraperitoneal (33.5%) mesh placement. Sixty-six of these used reinforced biologic mesh (Ovitex, TelaBio). Baseline characteristics were comparable including preoperative hernia size measured on CT. The mean follow-up time was 343 days. The majority of patients underwent component separation (80.3% bilateral, 11.4% unilateral, 8.3% none). On univariate analysis, reinforced biologic mesh did not impact 90-day complication rates (P = 0.391) or hernia recurrence rates (P = 0.349). On multivariate analysis, reinforced mesh had no impact on complication or recurrence rates (P > 0.2). A previous history of infected mesh was an independent risk factor for hernia recurrence (P = 0.019). Nonreinforced biologics were more likely to be used in instances of previous mesh infection (P = 0.025), bowel resection (P = 0.026), and concomitantly at the time of stoma takedown (P = 0.04). Reinforced biologics were more likely to be used with a history of previous hernia repair with recurrence not due to infection (P = 0.001). Body mass index >35 was an independent risk factor across both groups for 90-day complications (P = 0.028). Conclusions: Reinforced versus nonreinforced biologics have similar risk profile and recurrence rate when placed primary fascial repair achieved. In abdominal walls with history of infection, or abdominal wall reconstruction performed concomitantly at the time of stoma takedown or bowel resection/anastomosis, nonreinforced biologics were used more commonly with no difference in negative outcomes. This implies that they may have a role for use in contaminated surgical cases. Reinforced biologics were more commonly used as a mesh choice in the setting of previous hernia repair with recurrence with no difference in outcomes. This implies that the reinforced nature may be useful in situations where extra reinforcement of already traumatized abdominal wall tissue is needed. Retrorectus or intraperitoneal placement of any biologic mesh is acceptable and should be chosen based off surgeon comfort and anticipated cost saving of individual mesh brands. There may be a role for reinforced mesh in the setting of previous failed hernia repair with weakened fascia, as well as nonreinforced in contaminated cases.