211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34140156)
1. Biologic mesh is non-inferior to synthetic mesh in CDC class 1 & 2 open abdominal wall reconstruction.
Shao JM; Ayuso SA; Deerenberg EB; Elhage SA; Prasad T; Colavita PD; Augenstein VA; Heniford BT
Am J Surg; 2022 Feb; 223(2):375-379. PubMed ID: 34140156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Outcomes of biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 open abdominal wall reconstruction.
Katzen M; Ayuso SA; Sacco J; Ku D; Scarola GT; Kercher KW; Colavita PD; Augenstein VA; Heniford BT
Surg Endosc; 2023 Apr; 37(4):3073-3083. PubMed ID: 35925400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Delayed primary closure (DPC) of the skin and subcutaneous tissues following complex, contaminated abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR): a propensity-matched study.
Ayuso SA; Elhage SA; Aladegbami BG; Kao AM; Kercher KW; Colavita PD; Augenstein VA; Heniford BT
Surg Endosc; 2022 Mar; 36(3):2169-2177. PubMed ID: 34018046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Hernia recurrence and infection rate in elective complex abdominal wall repair using biologic mesh.
Kanitra JJ; Hess AL; Haan PS; Anderson CI; Kavuturu S
BMC Surg; 2019 Nov; 19(1):174. PubMed ID: 31752803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Outcomes of biosynthetic absorbable mesh use in high risk CDC Class I ventral hernia repair: a single surgeon series.
Smith A; Slater K
Hernia; 2022 Feb; 26(1):97-108. PubMed ID: 34105003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Hernia Recurrence and Complications After Abdominal Reconstruction With Reinforced Versus Nonreinforced Biologic Mesh.
Sweitzer K; O'Shea A; Tawil C; Weissberg J; Tomtschik J; Butterfield J; Fowler C; Langstein H; Bell D
Ann Plast Surg; 2024 Apr; 92(4S Suppl 2):S196-S199. PubMed ID: 38556672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Primary fascial closure with biologic mesh reinforcement results in lesser complication and recurrence rates than bridged biologic mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction: A propensity score analysis.
Giordano S; Garvey PB; Baumann DP; Liu J; Butler CE
Surgery; 2017 Feb; 161(2):499-508. PubMed ID: 27810091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Outcomes with porcine acellular dermal matrix versus synthetic mesh and suture in complicated open ventral hernia repair.
Liang MK; Berger RL; Nguyen MT; Hicks SC; Li LT; Leong M
Surg Infect (Larchmt); 2014 Oct; 15(5):506-12. PubMed ID: 25215466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh outcomes in contaminated hernia repairs.
Majumder A; Winder JS; Wen Y; Pauli EM; Belyansky I; Novitsky YW
Surgery; 2016 Oct; 160(4):828-838. PubMed ID: 27452954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The use of a novel synthetic resorbable scaffold (TIGR Matrix
Lewis R; Forman B; Preston M; Heidel E; Alvoid-Preston B; Ramshaw B
Hernia; 2022 Apr; 26(2):437-445. PubMed ID: 32451792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Outcomes Analysis of Biologic Mesh Use for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in Clean-Contaminated and Contaminated Ventral Hernia Repair.
Sbitany H; Kwon E; Chern H; Finlayson E; Varma MG; Hansen SL
Ann Plast Surg; 2015 Aug; 75(2):201-4. PubMed ID: 24317239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biologic vs Synthetic Mesh for Single-stage Repair of Contaminated Ventral Hernias: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Rosen MJ; Krpata DM; Petro CC; Carbonell A; Warren J; Poulose BK; Costanzo A; Tu C; Blatnik J; Prabhu AS
JAMA Surg; 2022 Apr; 157(4):293-301. PubMed ID: 35044431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Complex abdominal wall reconstruction: an outcomes review.
Henry CR; Bradburn E; Moyer KE
Ann Plast Surg; 2013 Sep; 71(3):266-8. PubMed ID: 23945531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The use of synthetic mesh in contaminated and infected abdominal wall repairs: challenging the dogma-A long-term prospective clinical trial.
Birolini C; de Miranda JS; Tanaka EY; Utiyama EM; Rasslan S; Birolini D
Hernia; 2020 Apr; 24(2):307-323. PubMed ID: 31493051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Outcomes of abdominal wall reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix are not affected by wound contamination.
Garvey PB; Martinez RA; Baumann DP; Liu J; Butler CE
J Am Coll Surg; 2014 Nov; 219(5):853-64. PubMed ID: 25440025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Resorbable Synthetic Onlay and Biologic Intraperitoneal Mesh for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A 2-Year Match-Paired Analysis.
Othman S; Christopher A; Patel V; Jia H; Mellia JA; Kovach SJ; Fischer JP
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2022 May; 149(5):1204-1213. PubMed ID: 35311754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with Concomitant Ostomy-Associated Hernia Repair: Outcomes and Propensity Score Analysis.
Mericli AF; Garvey PB; Giordano S; Liu J; Baumann DP; Butler CE
J Am Coll Surg; 2017 Mar; 224(3):351-361.e2. PubMed ID: 27965133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Coated Polypropylene Mesh Is Associated With Increased Infection in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.
Ayuso SA; Aladegbami BG; Kercher KW; Colavita PD; Augenstein VA; Heniford BT
J Surg Res; 2022 Jul; 275():56-62. PubMed ID: 35220145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the repair of potentially contaminated and contaminated abdominal wall defects.
Atema JJ; de Vries FE; Boermeester MA
Am J Surg; 2016 Nov; 212(5):982-995.e1. PubMed ID: 27443425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh.
Rosen MJ; Krpata DM; Ermlich B; Blatnik JA
Ann Surg; 2013 Jun; 257(6):991-6. PubMed ID: 23426340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
