The role of biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: A systematic review of the current literature

Evan W. Beale, Ronald E. Hoxworth, Edward H. Livingston, Andrew P. Trussler

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

63 Scopus citations


Background: Biologic mesh in the form of allograft or xenograft products have been used in complicated abdominal hernia repair, but few comparative studies exist. Methods: A systematic review of original incisional hernia studies was conducted to include 2 primary end points: hernia recurrence and surgical site occurrence. Analysis of variance and a Satterthwaite t test compared the devices. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included in this analysis, which included 1,257 patients. The total number of studies and the total subjects for each device include the following: Permacol (Tissue Science Laboratories, Hampshire, UK) (4/64), Surgisis (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) (3/87), and Alloderm (LifeCell, Corp, Branchburg, NJ) (23/1,106). Device-specific recurrence rates and surgical site occurrence rates, respectively, were as follows: Alloderm (20.8%, 31.4%), Permacol (10.9%, 25%), and Surgisis (8.0%, 40.2%). A Satterthwaite t test comparison revealed significantly higher numbers of hernia recurrence (P =.006) and surgical site occurrence (P =.04) when comparing Alloderm with Permacol. Conclusions: Biologic mesh does play a beneficial role in abdominal wall reconstruction although allograft acellular dermal matrix does have a higher recurrence rate as compared with xenograft products, which limits its current role in hernia repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)510-517
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican journal of surgery
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 1 2012


  • Abdominal component separation
  • Abdominal wall reconstruction
  • Acellular dermal matrix
  • Biologic mesh
  • Hernia repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'The role of biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: A systematic review of the current literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this