Profile
International Journal of Surgery & Surgical Procedures Volume 2 (2017), Article ID 2:IJSSP-116, 4 pages
https://doi.org/10.15344/2456-4443/2017/116
Original Article
Utility of Draining Fluid Collections Following Mesh Ventral Hernia Repair

Maureen P. Kohi*, Ryan Kohlbrenner, Evan Lehrman, Andrew G. Taylor, Kanti P. Kolli, Robert K. Kerlan Jr and Nicholas Fidelman

Department Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, 505 Parnassus Avenue, M-361, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
Dr. Maureen P. Kohi, Department Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, 505 Parnassus Avenue, M-361, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA; Tel: +(415) 353-1300; E-mail: maureen.kohi@ucsf.edu
04 January 2017; 25 March 2017; 27 March 2017
Kohi MP, Kohlbrenner R, Lehrman E, Taylor AG, Kolli KP, et al. (2017) Utility of Draining Fluid Collections Following Mesh Ventral Hernia Repair. Int J Surg Surgical Proced 2: 116. doi: https://doi.org/10.15344/2456-4443/2017/116

Abstract

Background: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is one of the most common surgical procedures and is commonly associated with post procedural fluid collection formation.
Purpose: To determine the clinical outcomes of percutaneous drainage of collections adjacent to mesh ventral hernia repair (VHR).
Material and Methods: A retrospective review of all consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous drainage of fluid collections adjacent to mesh VHR was performed. Patient characteristics, mesh type, culture results, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Clinical success was defined as mesh salvage and resolution of presenting signs and symptoms without surgical intervention.
Results: A total of 14 patients were included (6 men, 8 women) with median age of 53 years (range: 22- 80 years). Median interval time between VHR and drain placement was 40 days (range: 15-1144 days). Pain was the most common presenting symptom, noted in 13 patients 93%), followed by erythema which was noted in 10 patients (71%). Percutaneous drain insertion was technically successful in all 14 patients (100%). Clinical success was achieved for five out of 14 patients (36%) whose mesh was salvaged. The other nine patients (64%) required mesh excision because of lack of clinical improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in drainage outcomes when comparing patient age, gender, mesh type, interval from surgery to drainage, or bacterial cultures.
Conclusion: While percutaneous drainage of collections adjacent to mesh VHR may be successful in some cases, a majority of patients may ultimately require surgical mesh excision.