Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Long-term outcomes of synthetic vs biologic mesh in abdominal wall
By Wiley AJ et al.·2026·Department of Surgery·View original on Europe PMC →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Open, complex abdominal wall reconstruction with synthetic versus biologic mesh: Outcomes with a minimum of 5-year follow-up.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at how well two types of mesh—synthetic and biologic—work for repairing complex abdominal wall issues over a period of more than five years. Researchers compared 76 pairs of patients who had similar characteristics, such as age and health conditions, to see how each type of mesh performed. They found that while biologic mesh took longer to use and cost more, both types resulted in similar rates of complications like infections and hernias returning. Overall, the study concluded that biologic mesh is just as effective as synthetic mesh for these types of surgeries, even when used in more complicated situations.
Abstract
<h4>Introduction</h4>Reported outcomes for synthetic mesh versus biologic mesh in open abdominal wall reconstruction vary widely and are influenced by mesh type, location, fascial closure, wound complications, and patient characteristics. Little comparative data controlling for these variables or long-term results exists. This study compared outcomes between synthetic mesh and biologic mesh with >5 years of follow-up.<h4>Methods</h4>A prospectively maintained database was queried for open abdominal wall reconstruction with >5 years of follow-up. A 1:1 propensity score match was performed based on age, body mass index, tobacco status, diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and defect. Standard descriptive and comparative statistics were calculated.<h4>Results</h4>The 76 pairs generated were well balanced for age, body mass index, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and rate of recurrent hernia. Wound class varied significantly (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 2-4: 15.8% vs 81.6%; P < .001). Defect size (244.6± 267.0 cm<sup>2</sup> vs 254.1 ± 141.4 cm<sup>2</sup>; P = .0866) and mesh placement (preperitoneal 97.6% vs 100.0%; P = .497) were similar; mesh size differed (943.8 ± 415.0 cm<sup>2</sup> vs 581.5 ± 297.4 cm<sup>2</sup>; P < .001). There were no differences in component separation or fascial closure. Biologic mesh had increased operative time (189.9 ± 73.2 minutes vs 229.3.5 ± 95.7 minutes; P = .010), operating room charges ($12,682 ± $7,352 vs $22,293 ± $14,373; P < .001), and total charges ($58,265 ± $27,712 vs $119,740 ± $69,670; P < .001). Delayed primary closure was more frequent with biologic mesh secondary to wound contamination (1.3% vs 30.3%; P < .001). Postoperatively, there were no differences in wound dehiscence (11.8% vs 11.8%), infection (0.5% vs 14.5%), seroma (17.1% vs 14.5%), mesh infection (3.9% vs 2.6%), or hernia recurrence (11.8% vs 9.2%) (all P > .05). Follow-up averaged >7 years (3.2 ± 25.2 months vs 86.1 ± 24.5 months).<h4>Conclusion</h4>In propensity-matched patients with complex, large abdominal wall reconstructions with at least 5 years of follow-up, biologic mesh and synthetic mesh yielded equivalent hernia recurrence and wound complication outcomes. Biologic mesh is as effective as synthetic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction despite being more frequently used in a contaminated setting.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on Europe PMC: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41387067