Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2014 | Original Article

Effects of macroporous monofilament mesh on infection in a contaminated field

Authors: Kamil Bury, Maciej Śmietański, Bigda Justyna, Piotr Gumiela, Anna Irmina Śmietańska, Radosław Owczuk, Łukasz Naumiuk, Alfred Samet, J. Paradziej-Łukowicz

Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Issue 7/2014

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the type of the mesh and proper surgical technique can influence the outcome of a tension-free hernia repair in a contaminated filed.

Materials and methods

This study was based on the model of bacterial peritonitis in rats induced with a mixture composed of Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis. Two animals were used as a control group without induced peritonitis and 10 animals with mesh implanted inside of the peritoneal cavity. For the 20 animals in the studied group, bacterial fluid was applied into the abdominal cavity together with the mesh implantation. In 10 cases, the mesh was fixed flatly upon the surface of the peritoneum; in the other 10, the mesh was rolled and then fixed within the peritoneal cavity. After 5 weeks, the animals were operated on again, and the meshes, the peritoneal fluid and, if present, any granulomas were taken for bacterial cultivation.

Results

The results of the bacterial cultivation of the material from the control group (without mesh) and from the rats with flatly fixed mesh were almost completely negative (0/10 and 1/10, respectively). In 9 out of 10 rats that were exposed to the rolled mesh for 5 weeks, the colonisation of meshes with both B. fragilis and E. coli was found (p < 0.0198).

Conclusions

When properly fixed, flat mesh, even in a contaminated field, may allow for a proper mesh healing and does not influence the ability to cure bacterial peritonitis in an animal model. A bad surgical technique, such as inadequately positioned or rolled mesh, may cause persistent peritoneal bacteraemia.

Burger JWA et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583, discussion 583–5PubMedCentralPubMed

Buinewicz B, Rosen B (2004) Acellular cadaveric dermis (AlloDerm): a new alternative for abdominal hernia repair. Ann Plast Surg 52:188–194CrossRefPubMed

Peppas G, Gkegkes ID, Makris MC, Falagas ME (2010) Biological mesh in hernia repair, abdominal wall defects, and reconstruction and treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of the clinical evidence. Am Surg 76:1290–1299PubMed

Szczerba SR, Dumanian GA (2003) Definitive surgical treatment of infected or exposed ventral hernia mesh. Ann Surg 237:437–441PubMedCentralPubMed

Luijendijk RW et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398CrossRefPubMed

Petersen S, Henke G, Freitag M, Faulhaber A, Ludwig K (2001) Deep prosthesis infection in incisional hernia repair: predictive factors and clinical outcome. Eur J Surg 167:453–457CrossRefPubMed

Moon V, Chaudry GA, Choy C, Ferzli GS (2004) Mesh infection in the era of laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14:349–352CrossRefPubMed

Choi JJ et al (2012) Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases. Ann Surg 255:176–180CrossRefPubMed

Bosscha K et al (2000) A standardised and reproducible model of intraabdominal infection and abscess formation in rats. Eur J Surg 166:963–967CrossRefPubMed

10.

Katsikogianni M, Missirlis YF (2004) Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterials and of techniques used in estimating bacteria-material interactions. Eur Cell Mater 8:37–57PubMed

11.

Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B (2012) Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes. Hernia 16:251–258CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

12.

LeBlanc KA (2004) Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: complications-how to avoid and handle. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 8:323–331CrossRef

13.

Yerdel MA et al (2001) Effect of single-dose prophylactic ampicillin and sulbactam on wound infection after tension-free inguinal hernia repair with polypropylene mesh: the randomized, double-blind, prospective trial. Ann Surg 233:26–33CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

14.

Gilbert A, Graham M (1997) Infected grafts of incisional hernioplasties. Hernia 77–78:1–5

15.

Deysine M (2004) Post mesh herniorrhaphy infection control: are we doing all we can? Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 8:90–91CrossRef

16.

Perez AR, Roxas MF, Hilvano SS (2005) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for tension-free mesh herniorrhaphy. J Am Coll Surg 200:393–397, discussion 397–8CrossRefPubMed

17.

Aufenacker TJ, Koelemay MJW, Gouma DJ, Simons MP (2006) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in prevention of wound infection after mesh repair of abdominal wall hernia. Br J Surg 93:5–10CrossRefPubMed

18.

Parra MW, Rodas EB, Niravel AA (2011) Laparoscopic repair of potentially contaminated abdominal ventral hernias using a xenograft: a case series. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 15:575–578CrossRef

19.

Franklin ME Jr et al (2008) The use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic material for laparoscopic hernia repair in infected and potentially contaminated fields: long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 22:1941–1946CrossRefPubMed

20.

Bendavid R (2004) The unified theory of hernia formation. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 8:171–176

21.

Miserez M et al (2010) Closure of the LAPSIS trial. Br J Surg 97:1598CrossRefPubMed

22.

Blatnik J, Jin J, Rosen M (2008) Abdominal hernia repair with bridging acellular dermal matrix—an expensive hernia sac. Am J Surg 196:47–50CrossRefPubMed

23.

Gupta A, Zahriya K, Mullens PL, Salmassi S, Keshishian A (2006) Ventral herniorrhaphy: experience with two different biosynthetic mesh materials, Surgisis and Alloderm. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 10:419–425CrossRef

24.

Harth KC, Rosen MJ (2009) Major complications associated with xenograft biologic mesh implantation in abdominal wall reconstruction. Surg Innov 16:324–329CrossRefPubMed

25.

Darouiche RO (2004) Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med 350:1422–1429CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bellón JM, García-Carranza A, García-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martín A, Buján J (2004) Tissue integration and biomechanical behaviour of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 91:489–494CrossRefPubMed

27.

Klinge U et al (2002) Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 103:208–214CrossRefPubMed

28.

Greca FH et al (2001) The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects. Experimental study in dogs. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 5:59–64CrossRef

29.

Junge K et al (2005) Gentamicin supplementation of polyvinylidenfluoride mesh materials for infection prophylaxis. Biomaterials 26:787–793CrossRefPubMed

30.

Conze J et al (2004) Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: influence of pore size and surface area. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 8:365–372CrossRef

31.

Schachtrupp A et al (2003) Individual inflammatory response of human blood monocytes to mesh biomaterials. Br J Surg 90:114–120CrossRefPubMed

32.

Falagas ME, Kasiakou SK (2005) Mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery. Clin Microbiol Infect 11:3–8CrossRefPubMed

33.

Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Kasperk R, Schumpelick V (2001) Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 5:142–147CrossRef

34.

Sanders D, 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 17:779–789CrossRefPubMed

35.

Deerenberg EB et al (2012) Experimental study on synthetic and biological mesh implantation in a contaminated environment. Br J Surg 99:1734–1741CrossRefPubMed

36.

Petter-Puchner AH et al (2006) Adverse effects of porcine small intestine submucosa implants in experimental ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 20:942–946CrossRefPubMed

Title: Effects of macroporous monofilament mesh on infection in a contaminated field
Authors: Kamil Bury
Maciej Śmietański
Bigda Justyna
Piotr Gumiela
Anna Irmina Śmietańska
Radosław Owczuk
Łukasz Naumiuk
Alfred Samet
J. Paradziej-Łukowicz
Publication date: 01-10-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Issue 7/2014
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Electronic ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-014-1225-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Effects of macroporous monofilament mesh on infection in a contaminated field

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2014

Esophageal carcinoma cell line with high EGFR polysomy is responsive to gefitinib

Preconditioning in laparoscopic surgery—results of a virtual reality pilot study

Fibrin sealants and topical agents in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a critical appraisal

Development of a dynamic model for ventral hernia mesh repair

Diagnosis and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula

Predictive factors for pancreatic fistula following pancreatectomy