Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 12;63:102173. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.02.019

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Author
Table 1: Characteristics of the included studies
Inclusion criteria No. of Patients (%) CDC wound Class (%) SSI rate (%) Intervention
Studies evaluating mesh or suture repair in complicated vrentral hernia
Abdel-Baki
2007 [26]
Complicated Paraumbilical hernia M: 21(50)
S: 21(50)
I: M 18
S 18
II-III: M 3(14,3)
S 3(14,3)
M: 2 (9.5)
S: 3 (14.3)
M: On-lay monofilament polypropylene mesh repair
S: Keel repair
Haskins 2013 [16] Ventral Hernia hernia with or without resection of gangrenous bowel M: 700 [29]
S: 1749 (71)
II: M 418 (30.8)
S 939 (69.2)
III: M 162 (27.6)
S 425 (72.4)
IV: M 120(23.8)
S 385 (76.2)
M: 91(13)
S:197(11.2)
Unclear
Bondre 2016 [32] Complicated Ventral Hernia
Umbilical(%): 267 [35]
Incisional (%): 494 (65)
M:
SM:303 [40]
BM:167 [22]
S: 291 [38]
I: SM 249 BM 86
S: 176
II: SM 50 BM 30
S: 90
III: SM 4 BM 37
S: 19 (6.5%)
IV: BM 14
S: 6 (2.1%)
S:44 (15.1)
SM:54 (17.8)
BM:35 [21]
M: low-density and/or mid-density polypropylene repair (synthetic), and nonecross-linked biologic matrix repair (biologic)
S: suture repair
Emile 2017 [6] Ventral hernia with or without resection of gangrenous bowel
Umbilical(%): 103 (84.4)
Epigastric (%): 6 [5]
Spigelian (%): 3 (2.4)
Incisional (%): 10 (8.1)
M: 66 (54)
S: 56 (46)
I: M 31 (47)M
S 21 (37.5)
II:M 33 (50)
S 16 (28.5)
III: M 2 [3]
S 19 [34]
M:5 (7.5)
S: 3 (6.5)
M: On-lay prosthetic polyprolene mesh repair
S: Simple primary repair or Mayo's repair
Xourafas
2010 [30]
Ventral Hernia with simultaneous Bowel Resection M: 51
S: 126
Unclear M:11(20)
S: 6 (4.7)
M: Polypropylene mesh in 74%, 10% Biological Mesh, 2% Absorbable Mesh, 2% Polyesyer Mesh, 6% other type of Mesh
S: suture repair
Warren 2020 [25] Contaminated Ventral Hernia M:
SM: 402 BSM:55
BM:38
S: 46
II: S: 15 (32.61)
SM:212 (52.74)
BSM:15 (27.27)
BM:3 (7.89)
III:S: 6 (13.04)
SM:167 (41.54)
BSM:22 [40]
BM:19 (50)
IV: S: 25(54.35)
SM: 23 (5.72)
BSM: 18(32.73)
BM:16 (42.11)
M: 89 [18]
S:8 (17.4)
Mesh position:
Onlay 23 (4.25)
Inlay 1 (0.18)
Retromuscular 406 (75.05)
Preperitoneal 29 (5.36)
Intraperitoneal16 (2.96)
Studies evaluating mesh repair in different CDC wound classes
Casas 2020 [31] Abdominal wall repairs with polypropylene meshes in potentially contaminated fields 69 II: 33(47.8)
III: 36(52.2)
II: 3 [9]
III:9 [25]
Unclear
Bessa 2010 [27] Ventral Hernia with or without resection of gangrenous bowel para-umbilical: 71 (88.75)
epigastric 6 (7.5)
incisional 3 (3.75)
80 I: 62
>I: 18
I:8 (15.6)
>I: 1(3.4)
M: On-lay prosthetic polyprolene mesh repair
Choi
2012 [33]
Ventral Hernia hernia with or without resection of gangrenous bowel ClassI: 29.931 (88)
Class > I: 3901(12)
I: 29.931
II: 3879
III: 22
II:1111(3.7)
III:376 (9.6)
Unclear
Carbonel
2013 [28]
Clean-contaminated and contaminated Ventral hernia repair 100 II: 42
III: 58
II: 11 (26.1)
III:20 (23.5)
Polypropylene mesh in the retro-rectus position
Birolini 2019 [1] Chronic mesh infection resulting from a previous hernia repair compared to a cohort of patients with clean ventral hernia repair. Infected Mesh: 40(50)
Clean control: 40 (50)
I: 40(50)
IV: 40(50)
I:4 [10]
IV:6 [15]
The previous infected mesh removed entirely.
-Monofilament polypropylene
Mesh used in the onlay position
Studies evaluating different types of meshes
Majumder 2016 [31] ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated/contaminated fields SM:57 (45.2)
BM:69 (54.8)
II: BM: 41 (59.5)
SM: 37 (64.9%)
III: BM: 28 (40.5)
SM: 20 (34.1)
BM:22 (31.9)
SM: 7 (12.3)
Mesh position
Sublay:BM 68 (98.6), SM 56 (98.2)
Onlay: BM:0 (0.0); SM; 1 (1.8)
Underlay: BM 1 (1.4); SM:0 (0.0)
Chamieh 2017 [29] Ventral hernia in a Contaminated Field SM:24 [41]
BM:34 (59)
II: SM: 10(41.7)
BM: 17(50)
III: SM: 8(33.3)
BM: 10(9.4)
IV: SM: 7(20.6)
BM: 6(25)
SM: 7(29.2)
BM: 17 (50)
Mesh location:
Open Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh:18 (53)
Onlay: BM 6(17.6); SM 3(12.5)
Retrorectus: BM 10(29.4); SM 21(87.5)

M: Mesh repair; S: Suture repair, SM: Synthetic Mesh, BM: Biologic Mesh; BSM: Biosynthetic Mesh.