Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 6/2015

01-12-2015 | Original Article

Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?

Authors: B. Pérez-Köhler, S. Sotomayor, M. Rodríguez, M. I. Gegúndez, G. Pascual, J. M. Bellón

Published in: Hernia | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Although clinical data suggest the similar performance of collagen-based biological prosthetic materials to some polymer materials, the use of a biomesh for abdominal hernia repair in a setting of infection is controversial. This in vitro study compares the adhesion of two Staphylococcus strains to polymer and biological meshes.

Methods

Sterile fragments of Optilene® (Op), Surgipro™ (Surg), Preclude® (Precl), TIGR® (TIGR), Bio-A® (BioA), Permacol™ (Perm), Surgisis® (SIS), and Tutomesh® (Tuto) were inoculated with 106 CFU of S. aureus (Sa) or S. epidermidis (Se) (n = 18 per strain per mesh). The first five meshes are polymer materials while Perm, SIS and Tuto are biomeshes. After 24/48 h of incubation, bacterial adhesion was examined by sonication, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and light microscopy.

Results

Sa and Se showed a high affinity for the absorbable meshes (TIGR, BioA, Perm, SIS, Tuto) (p < 0.001). Precl yielded the lowest bacterial loads (p < 0.001). Surg, Precl and BioA underwent no substantial change over time, while Op (p < 0.001) and TIGR (p < 0.05) showed decreasing bacterial loads during incubation. The Sa-contaminated biomeshes behaved similarly while biomeshes inoculated with Se returned higher bacterial yields at 48 h, especially SIS (p < 0.001). SEM and light microscopy observations revealed planktonic bacteria and biofilms on the polymer surface and bacterial niches in biomesh pores.

Conclusions

Within 48 h of contamination, the absorbable polymer and biological meshes exhibited high bacterial loads. Given their lower affinity for both bacterial strains, the conventional non-absorbable polymer materials could be better candidates for use in contaminated surgical fields.
Literature
1.
2.
Cobb WS, Carbonell AM, Kalbaugh CL, Jones Y, Lokey JS (2009) Infection risk of open placement of intraperitoneal composite mesh. Am Surg 75(9):762–768PubMed
3.
Deysine M (2010) Infection control in a hernia clinic: 24 year results of aseptic and antiseptic measure implementation in 4620 “clean cases” based on up-to-date microbiological research. In: Schumpelick V, Fitzgibbons RJ (eds) Hernia Repair Sequelae, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 135–141CrossRef
4.
Robinson TN, Clarke JH, Schoen J, Walsh MD (2005) Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair. Surg Endosc 19(2):1556–1560CrossRefPubMed
5.
Engelsman AF, Van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Ploeg RJ (2008) Morphological aspects of surgical meshes as a risk factor for bacterial colonization. Br J Surg 95(8):1051–1059CrossRefPubMed
6.
Yoda I, Koseki H, Tomita M, Shida T, Horiuchi H, Sakada H, Osaki M (2014) Effect of surface roughness of biomaterials on Staphylococcus epidermidis adhesion. BMC Microbiol 14:234PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
Braem A, Van Mellaert L, Mattheys T, Hofmans D, De Waelheyns E, Geris L, Anné J, Schrooten J, Vleugels J (2014) Staphylococcal biofilm growth on smooth and porous titanium coatings for biomedical applications. J Biomed Mater Res A 102(1):215–224CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kinnari TJ, Esteban J, Martín-de-Hijas NZ, Sánchez-Muñoz O, Sánchez-Salcedo S, Colilla M, Vallet-Regí M, Gómez-Barrena E (2009) Influence of surface porosity and pH on bacterial adherence to hydroxyapatite and biphasic calciumphosphate bioceramics. J Med Microbiol 58(Pt.1):132–137CrossRefPubMed
9.
Sánchez VM, Abi-Haldar Y, Itani KMF (2011) Mesh infection in ventral incisional hernia repair: incidence, contributing factors, and treatment. Surg Infect 12(3):205–210CrossRef
10.
Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF, Rosen M, Silverman RP, Vargo D (2010) Incisional ventral hernia review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique or repair. Surgery 148(3):544–558CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lin HJ, Spoerke N, Deveney C, Martindole R (2009) Reconstruction of complex abdominal wall hernias using acellular human dermal matrix. A single institution experience. Am J Surg 197(5):599–603CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Carbonell AM, Criss CN, Cobb WS, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2013) Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 217(6):991–998CrossRefPubMed
14.
Yang F (2013) Use of polypropylene mesh in the management of a contaminated large ventral hernia: a contraindication or a solution? Am Surg 79(12):1298–1303PubMed
15.
García-Pumarino R, Pascual G, Rodríguez M, Pérez-Köhler B, Bellón JM (2014) Do collagen meshes offer any benefits over Preclude® ePTFE implants in contaminated surgical fields? A comparative in vitro and in vivo study. J Biomed Mat Res B Appl Biomater 102(2):366–375CrossRef
16.
Armañanzas L, Ruiz-Tovar J, Arroyo A, García-Peche P, Armañanzas E, Diez M, Galindo I, Calpena R (2014) Prophylactic mesh vs suture in the closure of the umbilical trocar site after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in high-risk patients for incisional hernia. A randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg 218(5):960–968CrossRefPubMed
17.
Sanders DL, Lambie J, Bond P, Moate R, Steer JA (2013) An in vitro study assessing the effect of mesh morphology and suture fixation on bacterial adherence. Hernia 17(6):779–789CrossRefPubMed
18.
Pérez-Tanoira R, Isea-Peña MC, Celdrán A, García-Vasquez C, Esteban J (2014) Bacterial adherence to different meshes used in abdominal surgery. Surg Infect 15(2):90–93CrossRef
19.
Bellón JM, García-Carranza A, García-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martín A, Buján J (2004) Tissue integration and biomechanical behavior of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 91(4):489–494CrossRefPubMed
20.
Halaweish I, Harth K, Broome AM, Voskerician G, Jacobs MR, Rosen MJ (2010) Novel in vitro model for assessing susceptibility of synthetic hernia repair meshes to Staphylococcus aureus infection using green fluorescent protein-labeled bacteria and modern imaging techniques. Surg Infect 11(5):449–454CrossRef
21.
Bellón JM, García-Honduvilla N, Jurado F, Carranza A, Buján J (2001) In vitro interaction of bacteria with polypropylene/ePTFE prostheses. Biomaterials 22(14):2021–2024CrossRefPubMed
22.
Demirer S, Geçim IE, Aydinuraz K, Ataoğlu H, Yerdel MA, Kuterdem E (2001) Affinity of Staphylococcus epidermidis to various prosthetic graft materials. J Surg Res 99(1):70–74CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN, Lambie J, Bond P, Moate R, Steer JA (2013) An experimental study exploring the relationship between the size of bacterial inoculum and bacterial adherence to prosthetic mesh. Surg Endosc 27(3):978–985CrossRefPubMed
24.
Nyame TT, Lemon KP, Kolter T, Liao EC (2011) High throughput assay for bacterial adhesion on acellular dermal matrices and synthetic surgical materials. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(5):1061–1068PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
25.
Catena F, Ansaloni L, Gazzotti F, Gagliardi S, Di Saverio S, D’Alessandro L, Pinna AD (2007) Use of porcine dermal collagen graft (Permacol) for hernia repair in contaminated fields. Hernia 11(1):57–60CrossRefPubMed
26.
Harth KC, Broome AM, Jacobs MR, Blatnik JA, Zeinali F, Bajaksouzian S, Rosen MJ (2011) Bacterial clearance of biologic grafts used in hernia repair: an experimental study. Surg Endosc 25(7):2224–2229PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
27.
Shah BC, Tiwari MM, Goede MR, Eichler MJ, Hollins RR, McBride CL, Thompson JS, Oleynikov D (2011) Not all biologics are equal! Hernia 15(2):165–171CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Rosen MJ, Denoto G, Itani KM, Butler C, Vargo D, Smiell J, Rutan R (2013) Evaluation of surgical outcomes of retro-rectus versus intraperitoneal reinforcement with bio-prosthetic mesh in the repair of contaminated ventral hernias. Hernia 17(1):31–35CrossRefPubMed
30.
Metadata
Title
Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?
Authors
B. Pérez-Köhler
S. Sotomayor
M. Rodríguez
M. I. Gegúndez
G. Pascual
J. M. Bellón
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Hernia / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-015-1378-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Hernia 6/2015 Go to the issue

Comment

Comment to “Long-term outcomes (>5 year follow-up) with porcine acellular dermal matrix (Permacol™) in incisional hernias at risk for infection” by Abdelfatah MM, Rostambeigi N, Podgaetz E, Sarr MG (DOI 10.1007/s10029-013-1165-9)

Letter to the Editor

Late mesh sepsis: how late is late?

Case Report

Reduction en masse of inguinal hernia: MDCT findings of two cases

Original Article

Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) endoscopic hernia repair in elderly patients

Case Report

Beware of spontaneous reduction “en masse” of inguinal hernia

Original Article

The necessity of routine histologic examination of hernia sac, revisited