Salvage of an infected titanium mesh in a large incisional ventral hernia using medicinal honey and vacuum-assisted closure: a case report and literature review
- 368 Downloads
The overall reported percentage of mesh infections is 1.3%. Infections after incisional ventral hernia repair depend on many factors. Salvaging an infected mesh should be the priority, because serious complications are reported following mesh removal. In this case report, a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-infected titanium mesh was salvaged by a novel technique, not requiring removal. The combination of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC™ therapy) of the wound and medical honey (L-Mesitran™) proved to be successful in leaving the mesh in situ. We report the successful management of this infected titanium mesh and review the literature regarding the possible pathogenetic mechanisms and treatment options.
KeywordsHernia repair Infection MRSA Prosthetic mesh Honey
- 3.Stremitzer S, Bachleitner-Hofmann T, Gradl B, Gruenbeck M, Bachleitner-Hofmann B, Mittlboeck M et al (2010) Mesh graft infection following abdominal hernia repair: risk factor evaluation and strategies of mesh graft preservation. A retrospective analysis of 476 operations. World J Surg 34:1702–1709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerberg B, Piroth C, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2002) Do multifilament alloplastic meshes increase the infection rate? Analysis of the polymeric surface, the bacteria adherence, and the in vivo consequences in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res 63(6):765–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Braakenburg A, Obdeijn MC, Feitz R, van Rooij IA, van Griethuysen AJ, Klinkenbijl JH (2006) The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum-assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(2):390–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Cooper RA, Jenkins L (2009) A comparison between medical grade honey and table honeys in relation to antimicrobial efficacy. Wounds 21(2):29–36Google Scholar