Comparative Effectiveness of Retromuscular and Intraperitoneal Repair: What Is the Value of Posterior Sheath Reconstruction?

Background: The authors hypothesize that posterior sheath reconstruction to achieve retromuscular mesh placement provides outcomes comparable to traditional retromuscular mesh placement and superior to intraperitoneal repair. Methods: Patients were divided into three groups: (1) retromuscular mesh placement with repaired posterior sheath defects, (2) retromuscular repair with an intact posterior sheath, and (3) intraperitoneal repair. Primary outcomes included recurrence, surgical-site occurrences, and cost. Results: Overall, 179 patients were included. Posterior sheath defects were repaired primarily with absorbable suture or biological mesh. Recurrence rates differed significantly between standard retromuscular repair and intraperitoneal repair groups (p < 0.009), trended toward significance between repaired posterior sheath and intraperitoneal repair groups (p < 0.058), and showed no difference between repaired posterior sheath and standard retromuscular repair (p < 0.608). Retromuscular repair was clinically protective and cost-effective. Conclusions: This analysis of posterior sheath reconstruction suggests outcomes comparable to traditional retromuscular repair and a trend toward superiority compared with intraperitoneal repair. Achieving retromuscular closure appears to demonstrate clinical and cost efficacy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.