Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review

Crystal Totten,1 Patrice Becker,2 Mathilde Lourd,2 J Scott Roth1 1Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536-0298, USA; 2Medical Affairs, Medtronic, Sofradim Production, Trevoux 01600, FranceCorrespondence: J Scott RothDivisio...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Totten C, Becker P, Lourd M, Roth JS
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2019
Materias:	Polyester Polypropylene Ventral Hernia Recurrence Infection Medical technology R855-855.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/5a800414a5bf4fb7852ac14f526d6d05
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:5a800414a5bf4fb7852ac14f526d6d05
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:5a800414a5bf4fb7852ac14f526d6d052021-12-02T09:58:13ZPolyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review1179-1470https://doaj.org/article/5a800414a5bf4fb7852ac14f526d6d052019-09-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/polyester-vs-polypropylene-do-mesh-materials-matter-a-meta-analysis-an-peer-reviewed-article-MDERhttps://doaj.org/toc/1179-1470Crystal Totten,1 Patrice Becker,2 Mathilde Lourd,2 J Scott Roth1 1Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536-0298, USA; 2Medical Affairs, Medtronic, Sofradim Production, Trevoux 01600, FranceCorrespondence: J Scott RothDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose Street, C-226 UKMC, Lexington, KY 40536, USATel +1 859 323 6346Fax +1 859 323 6840Email s.roth@uky.eduPurpose: Controversy exists regarding the outcomes following ventral hernia repair with polypropylene (PP) or polyester (PET) mesh. Monofilament PP less frequently requires extraction in the setting of contamination compared to multifilament PET mesh. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical outcomes of ventral hernia repair with PP and PET mesh.Patients and methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Ovid search platform. Criteria included ventral hernia repair publications using either PP or PET mesh with a minimum follow-up duration of one year. Included studies were subject to data extraction including mesh position, weight, recurrence rates, infection, and complications. Random effect meta-analysis was run to provide pooled event rate and 95% CI.Results: Ninety-seven studies including a total of 10,022 patients were included in the final analysis. Hernia recurrence rates are similar (4.8%, 95% CI [3.5–6.5] vs 4.7%, 95% CI [3.7–6.0]) as well as mesh infection rates (3.5%, 95% CI [2.5–4.9] vs 5.0%, 95% CI [3.9–6.3]) between PET and PP, respectively. Mesh infections occurred less frequently in laparoscopic repair compared to open (1.6%, 95% CI [0.9–2.6] vs 5.2%, 95% CI [4.3–6.3]).Conclusion: This study suggests that mesh material does not affect recurrence or infection in ventral hernia repair and that surgery can be safely performed with both PP and PET mesh. A laparoscopic approach is associated with a decreased infection rate compared to open repair independent of mesh type.Keywords: polyester, polypropylene, ventral hernia, recurrence, infectionTotten CBecker PLourd MRoth JSDove Medical PressarticlePolyesterPolypropyleneVentral HerniaRecurrenceInfectionMedical technologyR855-855.5ENMedical Devices: Evidence and Research, Vol Volume 12, Pp 369-378 (2019)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Polyester Polypropylene Ventral Hernia Recurrence Infection Medical technology R855-855.5
spellingShingle	Polyester Polypropylene Ventral Hernia Recurrence Infection Medical technology R855-855.5 Totten C Becker P Lourd M Roth JS Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
description	Crystal Totten,1 Patrice Becker,2 Mathilde Lourd,2 J Scott Roth1 1Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536-0298, USA; 2Medical Affairs, Medtronic, Sofradim Production, Trevoux 01600, FranceCorrespondence: J Scott RothDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose Street, C-226 UKMC, Lexington, KY 40536, USATel +1 859 323 6346Fax +1 859 323 6840Email s.roth@uky.eduPurpose: Controversy exists regarding the outcomes following ventral hernia repair with polypropylene (PP) or polyester (PET) mesh. Monofilament PP less frequently requires extraction in the setting of contamination compared to multifilament PET mesh. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical outcomes of ventral hernia repair with PP and PET mesh.Patients and methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Ovid search platform. Criteria included ventral hernia repair publications using either PP or PET mesh with a minimum follow-up duration of one year. Included studies were subject to data extraction including mesh position, weight, recurrence rates, infection, and complications. Random effect meta-analysis was run to provide pooled event rate and 95% CI.Results: Ninety-seven studies including a total of 10,022 patients were included in the final analysis. Hernia recurrence rates are similar (4.8%, 95% CI [3.5–6.5] vs 4.7%, 95% CI [3.7–6.0]) as well as mesh infection rates (3.5%, 95% CI [2.5–4.9] vs 5.0%, 95% CI [3.9–6.3]) between PET and PP, respectively. Mesh infections occurred less frequently in laparoscopic repair compared to open (1.6%, 95% CI [0.9–2.6] vs 5.2%, 95% CI [4.3–6.3]).Conclusion: This study suggests that mesh material does not affect recurrence or infection in ventral hernia repair and that surgery can be safely performed with both PP and PET mesh. A laparoscopic approach is associated with a decreased infection rate compared to open repair independent of mesh type.Keywords: polyester, polypropylene, ventral hernia, recurrence, infection
format	article
author	Totten C Becker P Lourd M Roth JS
author_facet	Totten C Becker P Lourd M Roth JS
author_sort	Totten C
title	Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_short	Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full	Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_fullStr	Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full_unstemmed	Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_sort	polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? a meta-analysis and systematic review
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2019
url	https://doaj.org/article/5a800414a5bf4fb7852ac14f526d6d05
work_keys_str_mv	AT tottenc polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview AT beckerp polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview AT lourdm polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview AT rothjs polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview
_version_	1718397882599473152

Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review

Ejemplares similares