Complications Following the Use of Biologic Mesh in Ileostomy Closure: A Retrospective, Comparative Study.

Prophylactic placement of mesh in the abdominal wall during ileostomy closure can decrease the rate of hernia formation. However, few studies have evaluated the safety of biologic mesh in ileostomy closure. Purpose This study aimed to investigate the safety of biologic mesh in ileostomy closure, specifically the need to remove the mesh due to infection. The rate of surgical site infection (SSI), incisional hernia, surgical site occurrence ([SSO] including seroma and hematoma), and wound pain between primary closure and mesh closure groups also were investigated. Methods Using a retrospective study design, data from all consecutive patients who underwent ileostomy closure from January 2015 to June 2016 at the Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea, were analyzed. Patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, who were older than 85 years, or who experienced intestinal perforation during the procedure were excluded. Demographic (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], underlying disease) and clinical characteristics as well as SSI, SSO, length of hospital stay, use of additional analgesics, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (noted on days 1, 3, 5, and 14) were abstracted and compared. Clinical and surgical variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, the χ2-test, or Fisher's exact test, depending on the nature of the data. Results Of the 38 patients who underwent ileostomy closure, 33 (18 [54.5%] who received primary closure and 15 [45.5%] who received mesh closure) were included for analysis. Patient, surgical, and clinical characteristics were not significantly different, but the mean age of the primary closure group was significantly higher than that of the mesh closure group (71 ± 9 vs. 62 ± 10 years old; P = .014). The median follow-up duration was 25 months (interquartile range 18.0-31.5 months). Six (6) complications were observed in 5 patients in the primary closure group, and 8 complications in 5 patients were noted in the mesh closure group (27.8% vs. 33.3%; P = 1.000). None of the cases required removal of the biologic mesh due to mesh-related infectious complication. Two (2) SSIs occurred in the primary closure group (11.1% vs. 0%; P = .489). Three (3) patients experienced a postoperative incisional hernia (9.1%) - 1 in the primary closure group and 2 in the mesh closure group (5.6% vs. 13.3%; P = .579). No statistically significant differences in pain or length of hospitalization were noted. Conclusion No mesh-related infectious complications required biologic mesh removal, and no significant differences were noted in SSI, incisional hernia, and wound pain between the primary closure and mesh closure groups. Although not significantly different, the higher rates of hernia and SSOs in the mesh group require further study.