Surgery

Exact test

Hernia repair

Fibrous joint

Hernia

Medicine

Surgical site infection

Surgical mesh

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains about appropriate mesh selection during ventral hernia repair (VHR) in a contaminated field. Fear of mesh infection has led to increased use of biologic and absorbable synthetic meshes rather than permanent synthetic mesh in these cases. We report the safety and efficacy of permanent synthetic mesh during contaminated VHR. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of our database identified all cases of contaminated VHR from July 2007 to May 2019. Student's t-test and Wilcoxon rank sum were used to analyze continuous variables, and discrete variables with Fisher's or Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: There were 541 contaminated cases: 245 clean-contaminated, 214 contaminated, and 82 dirty cases. Suture repair was performed in 46 patients, biologic mesh was used in 38, absorbable synthetic mesh in 55, and permanent synthetic mesh in 402. Mesh was extraperitoneal in 97% of cases. Incidence of surgical site infection in each group was 17.4%, 36.8%, 32.7%, and 14.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed no effect of mesh selection on risk of surgical site infection. Mesh was removed in 7 patients; 5 were permanent synthetic (1.2%), 1 was absorbable synthetic (1.8%), and 1 was biologic (2.6%). In 4 patients there was mesh-specific complication and the remaining meshes were removed during exploration for indications unrelated to the mesh. At a median follow-up of 30.2 months, recurrence occurred in 15.2% of patients and was significantly lower with permanent synthetic mesh. CONCLUSIONS: Permanent synthetic mesh placed in an extraperitoneal position is not only safe for VHR in a contaminated field, but it confers a significantly lower rate of surgical site infection and recurrence compared with biologic or bioabsorbable meshes.

Safety and Efficacy of Synthetic Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair in a Contaminated Field