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*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

33 Citations (Scopus)

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
Volume20
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2016
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, The Author(s).

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