The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of incisional hernia repair in solid organ transplant patients using non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM), human derived acellular dermal matrix (HADM) and synthetic mesh.
A retrospective review of patients who underwent hernia repair with PADM after pancreas and/or renal transplant at the University of Maryland Medical Center from 2008 to 2012 was conducted. Repair type, postoperative infection, hernia recurrence, mesh removal, and length of follow-up were recorded. Results were compared with our previously published data evaluating HADM and synthetic mesh used in transplant patients between 2000 and 2005.
Twenty-seven patients underwent ventral hernia repair with PADM, 34 patients were repaired with HADM and 26 were repaired with synthetic mesh. The rate of wound infection in those repaired with PADM, HADM, and synthetic mesh were 14.8%, 14.7%, and 65.4%, respectively. Rates of recurrence were 13.3%, 23.5%, and 76.9%, respectively. Rate of mesh removal was found to be 7.4%, 11.8%, and 69.2%, respectively. These complication rates were significantly lower in patients who received HADM or PADM compared with patients repaired with synthetic mesh (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes between the groups repaired with HADM or PADM.
The use of PADM for incisional hernia repair after kidney and/or pancreas transplant significantly reduces the incidence of hernia recurrence, wound infection, and need for mesh removal compared to synthetic mesh. No difference in morbidity between HADM and PADM was observed in the study population; however, longer follow-up in the PADM group is warranted.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#1,848
of 3,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#313,394
of 416,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#21
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,909 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
