Top

Hernia

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2012 | Original Article

Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes

Authors: U. Klinge, B. Klosterhalfen

Published in: Hernia | Issue 3/2012

Abstract

Background

It is an undisputable fact that meshes have become standard for repair of abdominal wall hernias. Whereas in the late eighties there were only a couple of different devices available, today we have to choose among some hundreds, with lots of minor and major variations in polymer and structure. As most of the minor variations may not lead to significant change in clinical outcome and may be regarded as less relevant, we should focus on major differences. Eventually, this is used to structure the world of mesh by forming groups of textile devices with distinct biological response. Many experimental and some clinical studies have underlined the outstanding importance of porosity, which fortunately, in contrast to other biomechanical quanlities, is widely unaffected by the anisotropy of meshes.

Methods

In accordance with the major manufacturers of meshes, a classification of meshes was derived from a huge pool of textile data based briefly on the following: (1) large pores, (2) small pores, (3) additional features, (4) no pores, (5) 3D structure and (6) biological origin. At 1,000 explanted meshes the value of this classification was evaluated by group-specific assessment of inflammatory and connective tissue reaction.

Results

Application of this classification to common products has proved feasable, and each of the six different classes includes devices that in clinical trials failed to show relevant differences in patients’ outcome when comparing products within the same group. Furthermore, histological analysis confirmed significant differences in tissue reactions between but not within the different classes.

Conclusions

Classifying implants according to a similar response enables grouping patients into comparable cohorts despite implantation of different devices. Furthermore, it enables the examination of the impact of mesh classes for the various indications even from heterogenous data of registries. Finally and not the least, any grouping supports the surgeon to select the best device to meet the individual need and to tailor patients therapy.

Available only for authorised users

Amid P (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall surgery. Hernia 1(1):15–21CrossRef

Coda A, Lamberti R, Martorana S (2012) Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial. Hernia 16(1):9–20

Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Conze J et al (1998) Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. Eur J Surg 164(12):951–960PubMedCrossRef

Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U (2005) The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2(1):103–117PubMedCrossRef

Weyhe D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O et al (2006) Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 30(8):1586–1591PubMedCrossRef

Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Ottinger AP et al (2002) PVDF as a new polymer for the construction of surgical meshes. Biomaterials 23(16):3487–3493PubMedCrossRef

Berger D, Bientzle M (2009) Polyvinylidene fluoride: a suitable mesh material for laparoscopic incisional and parastomal hernia repair! Hernia 13(2):167–172PubMedCrossRef

Deeken CR, Faucher KM, Matthews BD (2012) A review of the composition, characteristics, and effectiveness of barrier mesh prostheses utilized for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 26(2):566–575

Deeken CR, Abdo MS, Frisella MM et al (2011) Physicomechanical evaluation of polypropylene, polyester, and polytetrafluoroethylene meshes for inguinal hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 212(1):68–79PubMedCrossRef

10.

Saberski ER, Orenstein SB, Novitsky YW (2011) Anisotropic evaluation of synthetic surgical meshes. Hernia 15(1):47–52PubMedCrossRef

11.

Anurov MV, Titkova SM, Oettinger AP (2010) Impact of position of light mesh endoprosthesis with anisotropic structure for the efficiency of anterior abdominal wall reconstruction. Bull Exp Biol Med 149(4):440–444PubMedCrossRef

12.

Cobb WS, Peindl RM, Zerey M et al (2009) Mesh terminology 101. Hernia 13(1):1–6PubMedCrossRef

13.

Muhl T, Binnebosel M, Klinge U et al (2008) New objective measurement to characterize the porosity of textile implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 84(1):176–183PubMed

14.

Challoner DR, Vodra WW (2011) Medical devices and health–creating a new regulatory framework for moderate-risk devices. N Engl J Med 365(11):977–979

15.

Klinge U (2008) Mesh for hernia repair. Br J Surg 95(5):539–540PubMedCrossRef

16.

Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F et al (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13(4):407–414PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T et al (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25(9):2773–2843PubMedCrossRef

18.

Schmidbauer S, Ladurner R, Hallfeldt KK et al (2005) Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. Eur J Med Res 10(6):247–253PubMed

19.

Kapischke M, Prinz K, Tepel J et al (2005) Comparative investigation of alloplastic materials for hernia repair with improved methodology. Surg Endosc 19(9):1260–1265PubMedCrossRef

20.

Conze J, Junge K, Weiss C et al (2008) New polymer for intra-abdominal meshes–PVDF copolymer. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 87(2):321–328PubMed

21.

Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD et al (2006) Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 136(1):1–7PubMedCrossRef

22.

Klinge U, Klink CD, Klosterhalfen B (2010) The “ideal” mesh—more than a mosquito net. Zentralbl Chir 135(2):168–174PubMedCrossRef

23.

Smietanski M, Bury K, Smietanska IA et al (2011) Five-year results of a randomised controlled multi-centre study comparing heavy-weight knitted versus low-weight, non-woven polypropylene implants in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 15(5):495–501

24.

Bellon JM, Rodriguez M, Garcia-Honduvilla N et al (2009) Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 89(2):448–455PubMed

Title: Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes
Authors: U. Klinge
B. Klosterhalfen
Publication date: 01-06-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Hernia / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0913-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Herniamed: an Internet-based registry for outcome research in hernia surgery

Pediatric bilateral Morgagni-Larrey diaphragmatic hernia: Is diagnosis with computed tomography required in the era of laparoscopic approach?

Randomized controlled multicenter international clinical trial of self-gripping Parietex™ ProGrip™ polyester mesh versus lightweight polypropylene mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: interim results at 3 months

The Endoloop technique for the primary closure of direct inguinal hernia defect during the endoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach

Computed tomography scan diagnosis of occult groin hernia

Muscle degeneration in inguinal hernia specimens