A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Abdominal wall reconstruction with large polypropylene mesh: is bigger better? | LitMetric

Abdominal wall reconstruction with large polypropylene mesh: is bigger better?

Hernia

Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, C 222, Chandler Medical Center, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA.

Published: October 2019

Purpose: Hernia repair for large and complex hernias presents challenges related to the availability of larger mesh sizes. When sizes beyond those manufactured are required, multiple meshes (MM) may be sutured to create a larger graft. With the availability of large polypropylene mesh up to 50 × 50 cm (LM), abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) may be accomplished with a single mesh. This study evaluates clinical and economic outcomes following AWR with component separation utilizing MM and LM.

Methods: A retrospective study was performed with review of health records and cost accounting data. Patients that underwent AWR with LM were case matched 1:1 with patients undergoing MM repair based upon comorbidities, defect size and wound class.

Results: Twenty-four patients underwent AWR with LM. Twenty patients (10F, 10 M) who underwent AWR with LM were matched with 20 MM AWR (11F, 9 M). Age, BMI, ASA 3 + , never smoker, diabetes, and hernia characteristics were similar between LM and MM. Operative cost ($4295 vs $3669, p = 0.127), operative time (259 min vs 243 min, p = 0.817), length of stay (5.5 vs 6.2, p = 0.484), wound complication (30% vs 20%, p = 0.716), infected seroma (5% vs 5%, p = 1), and readmission (5% vs 15%, p = 0.605) were similar between LM and MM, respectively.

Conclusions: This is the first report of patients undergoing AWR with a large 50 × 50 cm prolene mesh. In this small cohort, clinical outcomes were similar between those undergoing repair with multiple sutured mesh sheets and a single large mesh.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02026-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

underwent awr
12
abdominal wall
8
wall reconstruction
8
large polypropylene
8
polypropylene mesh
8
patients underwent
8
patients undergoing
8
undergoing repair
8
mesh
7
awr
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!