Hernia

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 186–189 | Cite as

Use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic device for laparoscopic repair of hernias in contaminated fields: 2-year follow-up

  • M. E. FranklinJr.
  • J. J. GonzalezJr.
  • J. L. Glass
Original Article

Abstract

Background:

Surgisis is a new four- or eight-ply bioactive, prosthetic mesh for hernia repair derived from porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS). It is a naturally occurring extracellular matrix, which is easily absorbed, supports early and abundant new vessel growth, and serves as a template for the constructive remodeling of many tissues. As such, we believe that Surgisis mesh is ideal for use in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields in which ventral, incisional, or inguinal hernia repairs are required.

Methods:

From November 2000–May 2003, 53 patients (23 male, 30 female) underwent placement of Surgisis mesh for a variety of different hernia repairs. A total of 58 hernia repairs were performed in our patient population. Twenty procedures (34%) were performed in a potentially contaminated setting (i.e., with incarcerated/strangulated bowel within the hernia or coincident with a laparocopic cholecystectomy/colectomy). Thirteen repairs (22%) were performed in a grossly contaminated field, including one in which an infected polypropylene mesh from a previous inguinal hernia repair was replaced with Surgisis mesh and one in which dead bowel was discovered within the hernia sac. Median follow-up is 19 months with a range of 1–30 months.

Results:

Of the 58 total repairs, there was one wound infection complicated by enterocutaneous fistula in a patient originally operated on for ischemic bowel. The fistula was in a location independent of the Surgisis mesh. There have been no mesh-related complications or recurrent hernias in our early postoperative follow-up period.

Conclusions:

Surgisis mesh appears to be a promising new prosthetic material for hernia repair and appears to function well, especially in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields. Obviously, long-term follow-up is still required.

Keywords

Herniorrhaphy Laparoscopic hernia repair Mesh repair Surgisis mesh Contaminated field 

References

  1. 1.
    Cumberland MS (1952) A preliminary report on the use of prefabricated nylon weave in the repair of ventral hernia. Med J Aust 1:143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scales JT (1953) Discussion on metals and synthetic materials in relation to soft tissues; Tissue reaction to synthetic materials. Proc R Soc Med 46:647Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edelman DS (2002) Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy with porcine small intestinal submucosa: a preliminary study. JSLS 6(3):203–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badylak SF, Lantz GC, Coffey AC, Geddes LA (1989) Small intestine submucosa as a large diameter vascular graft in the dog. J Surg Res 47:74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lantz GC, Badylak SF, Coffey AC, Geddes LA, Blevins WE (1990) Small intestine submucosa as a small diameter arterial graft in the dog. J Invest Surg 3:217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lantz GC, Badylak SF, Coffey AC, Geddes LA, Sandusky GE (1992) Small intestine submucosa as a superior vena cava graft in the dog. J Surg Res 53:175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sandusky GE, Badylak SF, Morff RJ, Johnson WD, Lantz GC (1992) Histologic findings after in vivo placement of small intestine submucosa vascular grafts and saphenous vein grafts in the carotid artery in dogs. Am J Pathol 140:317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prevel CD, Eppley BL, Summerlin DJ, Sidner R, Jackson JR, McCarty M, Badylak SF (1995) Small intestinal submucosa: utilization as a wound dressing in full-thickness rodent wounds. Ann Plast Surg 35:381–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Badylak SF, Coffey AC, Lantz GC, Tacker WA, Geddes LA (1994) Comparison of the resistance to infection of intestinal submucosa arterial grafts versus polytetrafluoroethylene arterial prostheses in a dog model. J Vasc Surg 19:465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franklin ME, Gonzalez JJ, Michaelson RP, Glass JL, Chock DA (2002) Preliminary experience with new bioactive prosthetic material for repair of hernias in infected fields. Hernia 6:171–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vix JR, Meyer C, Rohr S, Bourtoul C (1997) The treatment of incisional and abdominal hernia with a prosthesis in potentially infected tissues — a series of 47 cases. Hernia 1:157–161Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Badylak SF, Kokini K, Tullius B, Whitson B (2001) Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res 99(2):282–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke KM, Lantz GC, Salisbury SK, Badylak SF, Hiles MC, Voytik SL (1996) Intestine submucosa and polypropylene mesh for abdominal wall repair in dogs. J Surg Res 60:107–114PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. E. FranklinJr.
    • 1
  • J. J. GonzalezJr.
    • 1
  • J. L. Glass
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas Endosurgery InstituteSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations