Background: In recent decades, two prominent methods for chest wall reconstruction have gained prominence: the use of proline mesh only and the combination of proline mesh with a metallic Bar. This work aimed for evaluation of comparative effectiveness of these two techniques, with a specific focus on their impact on wound infection rates and early postoperative outcomes.

Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed at Cardio-thoracic Surgery Department at Zagazig University Hospitals on 18 patients with significant defects of the chest wall resulting from chest wall infection, post-traumatic injuries, or tumors requiring resection and subsequent reconstruction. The study involved two groups: Group A, Nine cases who underwent chest wall reconstruction using Proline Mesh only, and Group B, Nine cases who underwent chest wall reconstruction using combined Proline Mesh with a Metallic Bar.

Results: The mean operation time was almost similar between the two groups. Intraoperative blood loss specific surgical procedures, such as partial sternotomy, diaphragm resection, pericardium resection, abdominal wall reconstruction, number of ribs resected, and site location of surgeries, did not exhibit statistically significant differences between both groups. Group B had a slightly more extended postoperative hospital stay, which was approaching significance. Post-operative complications did not significantly differ between the groups.

Conclusion: Overall, we found no significant differences in patient characteristics, causes of admission, lesion characteristics, laboratory data, or most postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Our findings strongly advocate for adoption of Proline Mesh with Metallic Bar technique as highly effective and favorable choice in chest wall reconstruction.