A retrospective study was performed with review of health records and cost accounting data. Patients that underwent AWR with LM were case matched 1:1 with patients undergoing MM repair based upon comorbidities, defect size and wound class.
Twenty-four patients underwent AWR with LM. Twenty patients (10F, 10 M) who underwent AWR with LM were matched with 20 MM AWR (11F, 9 M). Age, BMI, ASA 3 + , never smoker, diabetes, and hernia characteristics were similar between LM and MM. Operative cost ($4295 vs $3669, p = 0.127), operative time (259 min vs 243 min, p = 0.817), length of stay (5.5 vs 6.2, p = 0.484), wound complication (30% vs 20%, p = 0.716), infected seroma (5% vs 5%, p = 1), and readmission (5% vs 15%, p = 0.605) were similar between LM and MM, respectively.
This is the first report of patients undergoing AWR with a large 50 × 50 cm prolene mesh. In this small cohort, clinical outcomes were similar between those undergoing repair with multiple sutured mesh sheets and a single large mesh.