Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields

Background: In the past years, there has been increasing evidence that supports the use of permanent mesh in contaminated wounds. Given this increased evidence, the indications to opt for slowly absorbable “biosynthetic” prostheses have been questioned. To address this, we compared the outcomes of slowly absorbable mesh in contaminated cases in a well-matched multicentric cohort. Methods: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database was queried for patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair in Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—III operations (2013–2022). We compared demographics, hernia characteristics, and postoperative outcomes among types of mesh. We used propensity score matching to adjust for sex, diabetes, body mass index, smoking status, and operative time between mesh groups. Patients within other CDC classes and those with mesh positioned elsewhere than retro-rectus/preperitoneal space were excluded. Results: A total of 760 patients were included in the analysis. Slowly absorbable synthetic mesh (SA) was utilized in only 7% of the cases, while permanent (P) and biologic (B) mesh in 77% and 16%, respectively. After matching, 255 patients were studied. There was no difference in surgical site occurrence (8% SA, 16% P, 10% B, p = 0.27), surgical site infection (20% SA, 17% P, 12% B p = 0.54), surgical site occurrence requiring intervention (18% SA, 13% P, 14% B p = 0.72), readmission (12% SA, 14% P, 12% B, p = 0.90), or reoperation (8% SA, 2% P, 4% B, p = 0.14) at 30 days. In patients with 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in recurrence among groups (20% SA, 26% P, 24% B p = 0.90). Conclusion: Based on our findings, SA has comparable outcomes to other types of mesh, particularly when an optimal retro-rectus repair is performed.