Use of Biological Prosthesis in a Patient With Kidney and Pancreas Transplant and a Giant Incisional Hernia: Case Report

dc.contributor.authorOzcelik, Umit
dc.contributor.authorCevik, Halime
dc.contributor.authorBircan, Huseyin Yuce
dc.contributor.authorDemirag, Alp
dc.contributor.orcID0000-0003-1073-2494en_US
dc.contributor.orcID0000-0001-7276-3240en_US
dc.contributor.pubmedID25894161en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDAAG-8651-2021en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDR-6394-2019en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDJWP-7324-2024en_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-09T11:04:28Z
dc.date.available2024-02-09T11:04:28Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The use of synthetic mesh in transplant patients is controversial. Recent studies have shown that biological prostheses have a greater ability to integrate into tissues, resist bacterial colonization, and reduce cytotoxic or allergic reactions, and provide similar functional results, compared with synthetic prostheses. Biological prostheses do not require any reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy. We present the case of a kidney and pancreas transplant recipient who had a giant incisional hernia that was treated successfully with a biological prosthesis. Case Report: A 40-year-old male kidney and pancreas transplant recipient was admitted to our hospital with a giant incisional hernia, 2 years after transplant. The defect on the abdominal wall was 40 x 30 cm. We used 2 biological prostheses (40 x 20 cm and 30 x 20 cm) to close the abdominal wall. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 without complications. An abdominal magnetic resonance imaging scan showed complete integrity of the biological prostheses at 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: Transplant recipients have higher risks with use of synthetic prostheses because of being immunosuppressed, compared with other patients. Recent studies show that biological prostheses provided similar functional results without complications compared with synthetic prostheses. These prostheses are versatile and do not require any changes in immunosuppressive therapy. Therefore, they seem to be a better option than synthetic prostheses. In our opinion, biological prostheses are more safe, effective, and reliable than synthetic prostheses, especially for large incisional hernias in transplant recipients. We believe that further larger studies can support our opinion.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage234en_US
dc.identifier.issn1304-0855en_US
dc.identifier.issueSupplement 1en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84939802952en_US
dc.identifier.startpage231en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/11472
dc.identifier.volume13en_US
dc.identifier.wos000355058400045en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.6002/ect.mesot2014.P26en_US
dc.relation.journalEXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATIONen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergien_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAbdomenen_US
dc.subjectReconstructionen_US
dc.subjectRepairen_US
dc.subjectWounden_US
dc.titleUse of Biological Prosthesis in a Patient With Kidney and Pancreas Transplant and a Giant Incisional Hernia: Case Reporten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: