Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study

A. Gurrado, I. F. Franco, G. Lissidini, G. Greco, M. De Fazio, A. Pasculli, A. Girardi, G. Piccinni, V. Memeo, M. Testini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This retrospective comparative study analyzes the outcome of patients affected by incisional hernia in potentially contaminated or contaminated field, treated by three operative techniques. Methods: 152 patients (62 M:90 F; mean age 65 ± 14 years) underwent incisional hernia repair (January 2002–January 2012) in complicated settings. Criteria of inclusion in the study were represented by the following causes of admission: mesh rejection/infection, obstruction without gangrene but with possible peritoneal bacterial translocation, obstruction with gangrene, enterocutaneous fistula or simultaneous presence of ileo- or colostomy. The patients were divided into three groups: A (n = 76), treated with primary closure technique; B and C (n = 38 each), with reinforcement by synthetic or pericardium bovine mesh (Tutomesh®), respectively. The prosthetic groups were divided into Onlay and Sublay subgroups. Results: Significant decreases in C vs A were observed for wound infection (3 vs 37 %) and recurrence (0 vs 14 %), and in C vs B for wound infection (3 vs 53 %), seroma (0 vs 34 %) and recurrence (0 vs 16 %). Patients with concomitant bowel resection (BR) (43 %) showed (all P 

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)259-266
Number of pages8
JournalHernia
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2015

Fingerprint

Pericardium
Retrospective Studies
Gangrene
Wound Infection
Intestinal Fistula
Bacterial Translocation
Seroma
Recurrence
Inlays
Colostomy
Herniorrhaphy
Therapeutics
Incisional Hernia
Infection

Keywords

  • Contaminated field
  • Hernia repair
  • Incisional hernia
  • Pericardium bovine patch
  • Prosthetic mesh
  • Ventral hernia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields : retrospective comparative study. / Gurrado, A.; Franco, I. F.; Lissidini, G.; Greco, G.; De Fazio, M.; Pasculli, A.; Girardi, A.; Piccinni, G.; Memeo, V.; Testini, M.

In: Hernia, Vol. 19, No. 2, 01.04.2015, p. 259-266.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gurrado, A. ; Franco, I. F. ; Lissidini, G. ; Greco, G. ; De Fazio, M. ; Pasculli, A. ; Girardi, A. ; Piccinni, G. ; Memeo, V. ; Testini, M. / Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields : retrospective comparative study. In: Hernia. 2015 ; Vol. 19, No. 2. pp. 259-266.
@article{98087e4ad8a74fee8cffcbfaa43027ab,
title = "Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh{\circledR}) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study",
abstract = "Purpose: This retrospective comparative study analyzes the outcome of patients affected by incisional hernia in potentially contaminated or contaminated field, treated by three operative techniques. Methods: 152 patients (62 M:90 F; mean age 65 ± 14 years) underwent incisional hernia repair (January 2002–January 2012) in complicated settings. Criteria of inclusion in the study were represented by the following causes of admission: mesh rejection/infection, obstruction without gangrene but with possible peritoneal bacterial translocation, obstruction with gangrene, enterocutaneous fistula or simultaneous presence of ileo- or colostomy. The patients were divided into three groups: A (n = 76), treated with primary closure technique; B and C (n = 38 each), with reinforcement by synthetic or pericardium bovine mesh (Tutomesh{\circledR}), respectively. The prosthetic groups were divided into Onlay and Sublay subgroups. Results: Significant decreases in C vs A were observed for wound infection (3 vs 37 {\%}) and recurrence (0 vs 14 {\%}), and in C vs B for wound infection (3 vs 53 {\%}), seroma (0 vs 34 {\%}) and recurrence (0 vs 16 {\%}). Patients with concomitant bowel resection (BR) (43 {\%}) showed (all P ",
keywords = "Contaminated field, Hernia repair, Incisional hernia, Pericardium bovine patch, Prosthetic mesh, Ventral hernia",
author = "A. Gurrado and Franco, {I. F.} and G. Lissidini and G. Greco and {De Fazio}, M. and A. Pasculli and A. Girardi and G. Piccinni and V. Memeo and M. Testini",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10029-014-1228-6",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "259--266",
journal = "Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery",
issn = "1265-4906",
publisher = "Springer Paris",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields

T2 - retrospective comparative study

AU - Gurrado, A.

AU - Franco, I. F.

AU - Lissidini, G.

AU - Greco, G.

AU - De Fazio, M.

AU - Pasculli, A.

AU - Girardi, A.

AU - Piccinni, G.

AU - Memeo, V.

AU - Testini, M.

PY - 2015/4/1

Y1 - 2015/4/1

N2 - Purpose: This retrospective comparative study analyzes the outcome of patients affected by incisional hernia in potentially contaminated or contaminated field, treated by three operative techniques. Methods: 152 patients (62 M:90 F; mean age 65 ± 14 years) underwent incisional hernia repair (January 2002–January 2012) in complicated settings. Criteria of inclusion in the study were represented by the following causes of admission: mesh rejection/infection, obstruction without gangrene but with possible peritoneal bacterial translocation, obstruction with gangrene, enterocutaneous fistula or simultaneous presence of ileo- or colostomy. The patients were divided into three groups: A (n = 76), treated with primary closure technique; B and C (n = 38 each), with reinforcement by synthetic or pericardium bovine mesh (Tutomesh®), respectively. The prosthetic groups were divided into Onlay and Sublay subgroups. Results: Significant decreases in C vs A were observed for wound infection (3 vs 37 %) and recurrence (0 vs 14 %), and in C vs B for wound infection (3 vs 53 %), seroma (0 vs 34 %) and recurrence (0 vs 16 %). Patients with concomitant bowel resection (BR) (43 %) showed (all P 

AB - Purpose: This retrospective comparative study analyzes the outcome of patients affected by incisional hernia in potentially contaminated or contaminated field, treated by three operative techniques. Methods: 152 patients (62 M:90 F; mean age 65 ± 14 years) underwent incisional hernia repair (January 2002–January 2012) in complicated settings. Criteria of inclusion in the study were represented by the following causes of admission: mesh rejection/infection, obstruction without gangrene but with possible peritoneal bacterial translocation, obstruction with gangrene, enterocutaneous fistula or simultaneous presence of ileo- or colostomy. The patients were divided into three groups: A (n = 76), treated with primary closure technique; B and C (n = 38 each), with reinforcement by synthetic or pericardium bovine mesh (Tutomesh®), respectively. The prosthetic groups were divided into Onlay and Sublay subgroups. Results: Significant decreases in C vs A were observed for wound infection (3 vs 37 %) and recurrence (0 vs 14 %), and in C vs B for wound infection (3 vs 53 %), seroma (0 vs 34 %) and recurrence (0 vs 16 %). Patients with concomitant bowel resection (BR) (43 %) showed (all P 

KW - Contaminated field

KW - Hernia repair

KW - Incisional hernia

KW - Pericardium bovine patch

KW - Prosthetic mesh

KW - Ventral hernia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941359041&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941359041&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10029-014-1228-6

DO - 10.1007/s10029-014-1228-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 24584456

AN - SCOPUS:84941359041

VL - 19

SP - 259

EP - 266

JO - Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery

JF - Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery

SN - 1265-4906

IS - 2

ER -