Biologic versus synthetic mesh in open ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed worldwide, and using mesh is standard of care to decrease recurrence. Biologic meshes are increasingly used to minimize complications associated with synthetic mesh, but with significantly higher cost and unclear efficacy. Until recently, most of the evidence supporting the use of biologic meshes was from retrospective cohorts with high heterogeneity and risk of bias. We aimed to report a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of synthetic and biologic mesh in elective open ventral hernia repair.Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing biologic and synthetic mesh in elective open ventral hernia repairs. The postoperative outcomes were assessed by means of pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.Results: A total of 1,090 studies were screened, and 22 were fully reviewed. Four randomized controlled trials and 632 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Fifty-eight percent of patients had contaminated wounds (Wound Classification II-IV). Hernia recurrence (odds ratio 2.75; 95% confidence interval 1.76-4.31; P < .00001; I2 = 0%) and surgical site infections (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.02-2.29; P =.04; I2 = 0%) were significantly more common in patients with biologic mesh. The rates of seroma, hematoma, and mesh removal were similar in both groups.Conclusion: As compared to synthetic mesh, biologic meshes resulted in increased hernia recurrences and surgical site infections. Current evidence supports macroporous, uncoated synthetic mesh as the implant of choice for elective open ventral hernia repair, and its use should be considered even in contaminated cases.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.