Two different prosthetic materials in the treatment of large abdominal wall defects

N Z Med J. 2008 Aug 22;121(1280):19-24.


Aims: The use of prosthetic material is a well-accepted practice for the treatment of large ventral defects. The aim of this study is to present the effectiveness of two different prosthetic materials for large ventral defects.

Methods: In this retrospective 3-year study, 41 patients (17 males, 24 females) underwent surgical correction of large abdominal wall defects. Two subgroups were formed based on the possibility of peritoneal preservation. In the first group (24 patients) the bifilament polypropylene mesh was used, while in the second group (17 patients) the expanded polytetrafluroethylene patches were used.

Results: The mean hospitalisation time was 7.8 days (SD 9.2 days) for the first and 10 days (SD 4.2 days) for the second group (p=ns). Group A presented the following complications: Two seromas, 1 fistula, 2 wound infections. Removal of the mesh was necessary in one case. Two recurrences were noticed during the 5-year follow-up period. Group B presented a seroma and an infection, but no recurrences. As for complications, no statistical difference exists between the two groups. Furthermore, 5 patients (20.83%) from group A complained of abdominal discomfort due to stiffness, especially when they were bending (p=0.029).

Conclusions: Both prosthetic patches are safe and effective when used in the repair of large abdominal wall defects. Operative complications are within acceptable limits, and the reherniation rate is low.

MeSH terms

  • Abdominal Wall / surgery*
  • Adult
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Herniorrhaphy*
  • Humans
  • Length of Stay / statistics & numerical data
  • Male
  • Polypropylenes
  • Polytetrafluoroethylene
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Surgical Mesh* / adverse effects


  • Polypropylenes
  • Polytetrafluoroethylene