Ventral HerniaPhase 2/3NCT02703662
Performance of Biologic Mesh Materials in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction
A Phase 2/3 study testing Strattice biologic mesh and Permacol biologic mesh in people with Ventral Hernia, run by University of Calgary at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
To date, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials that compare various biologic mesh materials in the context of abdominal wall reconstruction. As a result, this proposal describes a 'head to head' randomized controlled trial (RCT) between 2 of the market's most popular biologic meshes. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Ventral Hernia
- What is being tested?
- Strattice biologic mesh and Permacol biologic mesh
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 90 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 26 Oct 2017to Dec 2025
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- The study population will consist of adult patients, 18 years or older, undergoing an abdominal wall reconstruction. Prior to selection, at least 2 surgeons involved in the trial must agree that the indication for use of biologic implant is mutual.
Who cannot join
- Patients will be excluded if they are unable or unwilling to provide informed consent.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Foothills Medical Centre, Faculty of Medicine
Calgary, Alberta, T2N2T9
Chad G Ball, MD, 403-944-3417, ball.chad@gmail.com
Jimmy Xiao, PhD, 403-944-8750, jimmy.xiao@albertahealthservices.ca
About this study
Official title: Performance of Biologic Mesh Materials in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction - A Randomized Controlled Trial
To date, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials that compare various biologic mesh materials in the context of abdominal wall reconstruction. As a result, this proposal describes a 'head to head' randomized controlled trial (RCT) between 2 of the market's most popular biologic meshes. Strattice (noncross-linked porcine dermis, LifeCell Inc.) will be compared to Permacol (cross-linked porcine dermis, Covidien Inc.) in a randomized manner. Although there are significant differences between these mesh products with regard to procurement, tissue processing and cost, clinical controlled trials are needed to compare their performance.
Read the detailed description
Complex abdominal wall reconstructions utilize advanced techniques that include, but are not limited to, component separation, modified component separation, and free tissue flap reconstruction. Data suggests that recurrence rates are lowered with the insertion of mesh supporting materials. More specifically, synthetic mesh utilization during repair of simple clean ventral hernias reduces hernia recurrence by over 50% when compared to suture closure alone. Unfortunately in the presence of microbial contamination or infection, there is a marked increase in hernia recurrence and mesh infection using synthetic prostheses. Biologic meshes however are established options for use in abdominal wall reconstruction in the presence of both field contamination and infection. These indications, as well as others, for biologic materials include, but are not limited to, patients with chronic immunosuppression, infected fields, colonized fields (i.e. preceding synthetic mesh), the need to place the product within the peritoneal cavity (underlay), and patients with complex losses of domain. It should also be noted that there may be significant utility in their use of biologic materials in a much broader range of indications, but the economic cost of these products have clearly tempored wider indications for overall use.
To date, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials that compare various biologic mesh materials in the context of abdominal wall reconstruction. As a result, this proposal describes a 'head to head' randomized controlled trial (RCT) between 2 of the market's most popular biologic meshes. Strattice (noncross-linked porcine dermis, LifeCell Inc.) will be compared to Permacol (cross-linked porcine dermis, Covidien Inc.) in a randomized manner. Although there are significant differences between these mesh products with regard to procurement, tissue processing and cost, clinical controlled trials are needed to compare their performance.
Given the nearly 2-fold difference in cost between the 2 included biologic meshes, equivalence with regard to recurrence and postoperative complications would represent a massive economic savings to the public health care system.
- Conditions
- Ventral Hernia
- Being tested
- Strattice biologic mesh, Permacol biologic mesh
- Keywords
- Biologic mesh, abdominal wall reconstruction
- Medical subject headings
- Hernia, Ventral
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Strattice biologic meshDevice
Patients randomized to this group will be inserted one or more Strattice biologic meshes during the abdominal wall reconstruction surgical procedure.
Permacol biologic meshDevice
Patients randomized to this group will be inserted one or more Permacol biologic meshes during the abdominal wall reconstruction surgical procedure.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Strattice biologic mesh | Active comparator | Strattice mesh is made of noncross-linked porcine dermis, which is used to support abdominal wall reconstruction. Receives: Device: Strattice biologic mesh |
| Permacol biologic mesh | Experimental | Permacol mesh is made of cross-linked porcine dermis, which is used to support abdominal wall reconstruction. Receives: Device: Permacol biologic mesh |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The percentage of hernia recurrence in patients received the biologic meshes.
Measured: 12 months postoperation
Secondary outcomes (2)
The percentage of wound infection of the participants.
Measured: 12 months postoperation
The days of hospital stay post the abdominal wall reconstruction procedure.
Measured: 12 months postoperation
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Mar 2016 (estimated)
- Study start26 Oct 2017
- Primary completionOct 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Ventral HerniaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of CalgaryThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Calgary
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medtronic
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Chad G. Ball, University of Calgary
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02703662
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Bio_ Mesh
- Status last verified
- Feb 2023
- First submitted
- 25 Feb 2016
- Last updated
- 3 Feb 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004 Oct;240(4):578-83; discussion 583-5. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7.
PubMed 15383785Richmond BK, Chong B. Routine use of bioprosthetic mesh is not necessary: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive cases of intra-abdominal midweight polypropylene mesh for ventral hernia repair. Surgery. 2013 May;153(5):741. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.02.006. Epub 2013 Mar 13. No abstract available.
PubMed 23489939Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg. 1998 Apr;133(4):378-82. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.133.4.378.
PubMed 9565117Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg. 2013 Jun;257(6):991-6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182849871.
PubMed 23426340Lupinacci RM, Gizard AS, Rivkine E, Debove C, Menegaux F, Barrat C, Wind P, Tresallet C. Use of a bioprosthetic mesh in complex hernia repair: early results from a French multicenter pilot study. Surg Innov. 2014 Dec;21(6):600-4. doi: 10.1177/1553350613520514. Epub 2014 Feb 3.
PubMed 24496103Iacco A, Adeyemo A, Riggs T, Janczyk R. Single institutional experience using biological mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2014 Sep;208(3):480-4; discussion 483-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.020. Epub 2013 Dec 25.
PubMed 24462172Ouellet JF, Ball CG, Kortbeek JB, Mack LA, Kirkpatrick AW. Bioprosthetic mesh use for the problematic thoracoabdominal wall: outcomes in relation to contamination and infection. Am J Surg. 2012 May;203(5):594-597. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.008. Epub 2012 Mar 23.
PubMed 22444712Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J, Jaeschke R, Malbrain ML, De Keulenaer B, Duchesne J, Bjorck M, Leppaniemi A, Ejike JC, Sugrue M, Cheatham M, Ivatury R, Ball CG, Reintam Blaser A, Regli A, Balogh ZJ, D'Amours S, Debergh D, Kaplan M, Kimball E, Olvera C; Pediatric Guidelines Sub-Committee for the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2013 Jul;39(7):1190-206. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-2906-z. Epub 2013 May 15.
PubMed 23673399Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS. Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Surg. 2013 Jan;205(1):85-101. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.02.019. Epub 2012 Aug 4.
PubMed 22867726Smart NJ, Marshall M, Daniels IR. Biological meshes: a review of their use in abdominal wall hernia repairs. Surgeon. 2012 Jun;10(3):159-71. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2012.02.006. Epub 2012 Mar 20.
PubMed 22436406Cheng AW, Abbas MA, Tejirian T. Outcome of abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: Permacol versus Strattice. Am Surg. 2014 Oct;80(10):999-1002.
PubMed 25264647Melnik I, Goldstein D, Yoffe B. Use of a porcine dermal collagen implant for contaminated abdominal wall reconstruction in a 105-year-old woman: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Rep. 2015 Apr 29;9:95. doi: 10.1186/s13256-015-0569-9.
PubMed 25925149Carver DA, Kirkpatrick AW, Eberle TL, Ball CG. Performance of biological mesh materials in abdominal wall reconstruction: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 15;9(2):e024091. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024091.
PubMed 30772851
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Feb 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Performance of Biologic Mesh Materials in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction - A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02703662
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Bio_ Mesh
- Conditions
- Ventral Hernia
- Keywords
- Biologic mesh, abdominal wall reconstruction
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of CalgaryUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medtronic
- Study start
- 26 Oct 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Oct 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 9 Mar 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To date, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials that compare various biologic mesh materials in the context of abdominal wall reconstruction. As a result, this proposal describes a 'head to head' randomized controlled trial (RCT) between 2 of the market's most popular biologic meshes. Strattice (noncross-linked porcine dermis, LifeCell Inc.) will be compared to Permacol (cross-linked porcine dermis, Covidien Inc.) in a randomized manner. Although there are significant differences between these mesh products with regard to procurement, tissue processing and cost, clinical controlled trials are needed to compare their performance.
Detailed description
Complex abdominal wall reconstructions utilize advanced techniques that include, but are not limited to, component separation, modified component separation, and free tissue flap reconstruction. Data suggests that recurrence rates are lowered with the insertion of mesh supporting materials. More specifically, synthetic mesh utilization during repair of simple clean ventral hernias reduces hernia recurrence by over 50% when compared to suture closure alone. Unfortunately in the presence of microbial contamination or infection, there is a marked increase in hernia recurrence and mesh infection using synthetic prostheses. Biologic meshes however are established options for use in abdominal wall reconstruction in the presence of both field contamination and infection. These indications, as well as others, for biologic materials include, but are not limited to, patients with chronic immunosuppression, infected fields, colonized fields (i.e. preceding synthetic mesh), the need to place the product within the peritoneal cavity (underlay), and patients with complex losses of domain. It should also be noted that there may be significant utility in their use of biologic materials in a much broader range of indications, but the economic cost of these products have clearly tempored wider indications for overall use.
To date, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials that compare various biologic mesh materials in the context of abdominal wall reconstruction. As a result, this proposal describes a 'head to head' randomized controlled trial (RCT) between 2 of the market's most popular biologic meshes. Strattice (noncross-linked porcine dermis, LifeCell Inc.) will be compared to Permacol (cross-linked porcine dermis, Covidien Inc.) in a randomized manner. Although there are significant differences between these mesh products with regard to procurement, tissue processing and cost, clinical controlled trials are needed to compare their performance.
Given the nearly 2-fold difference in cost between the 2 included biologic meshes, equivalence with regard to recurrence and postoperative complications would represent a massive economic savings to the public health care system.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Strattice biologic mesh | Active comparator | Device: Strattice biologic meshStrattice mesh is made of noncross-linked porcine dermis, which is used to support abdominal wall reconstruction. |
| Permacol biologic mesh | Experimental | Device: Permacol biologic meshPermacol mesh is made of cross-linked porcine dermis, which is used to support abdominal wall reconstruction. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- The study population will consist of adult patients, 18 years or older, undergoing an abdominal wall reconstruction. Prior to selection, at least 2 surgeons involved in the trial must agree that the indication for use of biologic implant is mutual.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients will be excluded if they are unable or unwilling to provide informed consent.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Strattice biologic meshPatients randomized to this group will be inserted one or more Strattice biologic meshes during the abdominal wall reconstruction surgical procedure. | Device | Strattice biologic mesh |
| Permacol biologic meshPatients randomized to this group will be inserted one or more Permacol biologic meshes during the abdominal wall reconstruction surgical procedure. | Device | Permacol biologic mesh |
Primary outcome
The percentage of hernia recurrence in patients received the biologic meshes.
Time frame: 12 months postoperation
2 secondary outcomes
The percentage of wound infection of the participants.
Time frame: 12 months postoperation
The days of hospital stay post the abdominal wall reconstruction procedure.
Time frame: 12 months postoperation
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Feb 2023.
- Background: PubMed 15383785Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004 Oct;240(4):578-83; discussion 583-5. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7.
- Background: PubMed 23489939Richmond BK, Chong B. Routine use of bioprosthetic mesh is not necessary: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive cases of intra-abdominal midweight polypropylene mesh for ventral hernia repair. Surgery. 2013 May;153(5):741. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.02.006. Epub 2013 Mar 13. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 9565117Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg. 1998 Apr;133(4):378-82. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.133.4.378.
- Background: PubMed 23426340Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg. 2013 Jun;257(6):991-6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182849871.
- Background: PubMed 24496103Lupinacci RM, Gizard AS, Rivkine E, Debove C, Menegaux F, Barrat C, Wind P, Tresallet C. Use of a bioprosthetic mesh in complex hernia repair: early results from a French multicenter pilot study. Surg Innov. 2014 Dec;21(6):600-4. doi: 10.1177/1553350613520514. Epub 2014 Feb 3.
- Background: PubMed 24462172Iacco A, Adeyemo A, Riggs T, Janczyk R. Single institutional experience using biological mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2014 Sep;208(3):480-4; discussion 483-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.020. Epub 2013 Dec 25.
- Background: PubMed 22444712Ouellet JF, Ball CG, Kortbeek JB, Mack LA, Kirkpatrick AW. Bioprosthetic mesh use for the problematic thoracoabdominal wall: outcomes in relation to contamination and infection. Am J Surg. 2012 May;203(5):594-597. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.008. Epub 2012 Mar 23.
- Background: PubMed 23673399Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J, Jaeschke R, Malbrain ML, De Keulenaer B, Duchesne J, Bjorck M, Leppaniemi A, Ejike JC, Sugrue M, Cheatham M, Ivatury R, Ball CG, Reintam Blaser A, Regli A, Balogh ZJ, D'Amours S, Debergh D, Kaplan M, Kimball E, Olvera C; Pediatric Guidelines Sub-Committee for the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2013 Jul;39(7):1190-206. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-2906-z. Epub 2013 May 15.
- Background: PubMed 22867726Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS. Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Surg. 2013 Jan;205(1):85-101. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.02.019. Epub 2012 Aug 4.
- Background: PubMed 22436406Smart NJ, Marshall M, Daniels IR. Biological meshes: a review of their use in abdominal wall hernia repairs. Surgeon. 2012 Jun;10(3):159-71. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2012.02.006. Epub 2012 Mar 20.
- Background: PubMed 25264647Cheng AW, Abbas MA, Tejirian T. Outcome of abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: Permacol versus Strattice. Am Surg. 2014 Oct;80(10):999-1002.
- Background: PubMed 25925149Melnik I, Goldstein D, Yoffe B. Use of a porcine dermal collagen implant for contaminated abdominal wall reconstruction in a 105-year-old woman: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Rep. 2015 Apr 29;9:95. doi: 10.1186/s13256-015-0569-9.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Ventral Hernia
Recruiting
Duramesh Versus Minimally Invasive IPOM for High-Risk Umbilical Hernia Repairs
Umbilical Hernia, Ventral Hernia
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Assessment of GORE® SYNECOR Biomaterial in Focused Patient Populations and Long-Term Application
Hernia, Ventral, Hernia Incisional
Recruiting
GORE® ENFORM Biomaterial Product Study
Hernia, Ventral, Hernia, Hiatal
RecruitingPhase 4
Preoperative BOTOX® Injection for Large Ventral Hernia Repair
Hernia Abdominal Wall, Botox Injection
Not yet recruiting
SUTURE TYPE AND RECURRENCE RISK AFTER INCISIONAL HERNIA REPAIR
Ventral Incisional Hernia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2/3 study testing Strattice biologic mesh and Permacol biologic mesh in people with Ventral Hernia, run by University of Calgary at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Feb 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this combined phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The percentage of hernia recurrence in patients received the biologic meshes. (time frame: 12 months postoperation). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02703662, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Feb 2023.