Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?

G. D. Musters, O. Lapid, J. Stoker, B. F. Musters, W. A. Bemelman, P. J. Tanis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

27 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the outcome of perineal hernia repair with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Method: All consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with a porcine acellular dermal mesh between 2010 and 2014 were included. Follow-up was performed by clinical examination and MRI. Results: Fifteen patients underwent perineal hernia repair after a median of 25 months from APR. Four patients had a concomitant contaminated perineal defect, for which a gluteal fasciocutaneous flap was added in three patients. Wound infection occurred in three patients. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 12–24), a clinically recurrent perineal hernia developed in 7 patients (47 %): 6 of 11 patients after a non-cross-linked mesh and 1 of 4 patients after a cross-linked mesh (p = 0.57). Routine MRI at a median of 17 months revealed a recurrent perineal hernia in 7 of 10 evaluable patients, with clinical confirmation of recurrence in 5 of these 7 patients. No recurrent hernia was observed in the three patients with combined flap reconstruction for contaminated perineal defects. Conclusion: A high recurrence rate was observed after biological mesh repair of a perineal hernia following APR.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)747-754
Number of pages8
JournalHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery
Volume20
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Oct 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Abdominoperineal resection
  • Biological mesh
  • Dynamic MRI
  • Hernia repair
  • Perineal hernia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this