An in vitro study assessing the effect of mesh morphology and suture fixation on bacterial adherence
- 735 Downloads
Prosthetic infections, although relatively uncommon in hernia surgery, are a source of considerable morbidity and cost. The aims of this experimental study were to assess the influence of the morphological properties of the mesh on bacterial adherence in vitro. The morphological properties assessed were the polymer type, filament type, filament diameter, mesh weight, mean pore size, and the addition of silver chlorhexidine and titanium coatings. In addition, the study assessed the effect on bacterial adherence of adding a commonly used suture to the mesh and compared adherence rates to self-gripping mesh that does not require suture fixation.
Eight commercially sourced flat hernia meshes with different material characteristics were included in the study. These were Prolene® (Ethicon®), DualMesh® (Gore®), DualMesh® Plus (Gore®), Parietex™ ProGrip (Covidien™), TiMesh® Light (GfE Medical), Bard® Soft Mesh (Bard®), Vypro® (Ethicon®), and Omyra® (Braun®). Individual meshes were inoculated with Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus with a bacterial inoculum of 102 bacteria. To assess the effect of suture material on bacterial adhesion, a sterile piece of commonly used monofilament suture material (2.0 Prolene®, ZB370 Ethicon®) was sutured to selected meshes (chosen to represent different commonly used polymers and/or the presence of an antibacterial coating). Inoculated meshes were incubated for 18 h in tryptone soy broth and then analysed using scanning electron microscopy. A previously validated method for enumeration of bacteria using automated stage movement electron microscopy was used for direct bacterial counting. The final fraction of the bacteria adherent to the mesh was compared between the meshes and for each morphological variable. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the bacterial counts. Tukey’s test was used to determine the difference between the different biomaterials in the event the ANOVA was significant.
Properties that significantly increased the mean bacterial adherence were the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene polymer (P < 0.001); multifilament meshes (P < 0.001); increased filament diameter (P < 0.001); increased mesh weight (P < 0.001); and smaller mean pore size (P < 0.001). In contrast, mesh coating with antibacterial silver chlorhexidine significantly reduced bacterial adhesion (S. epidermidis mean bacterial count 140.7 ± 19.1 SE with DualMesh® vs. 2.3 ± 1.2 SE with DualMesh® Plus, P < 0.001; S. aureus mean bacterial count 371.7 ± 22.7 SE with DualMesh® vs. 19.3 ± 4.7 SE with DualMesh® Plus, P = 0.002). The addition of 2.0 Prolene suture material significantly increased the mean number of adherent bacteria independent of the mesh polymer or mesh coating (P = 0.04 to <0.001).
The present study demonstrates the significant influence of the prosthetic load on bacterial adherence. In patients at increased risk of infection, low prosthetic load materials, i.e., lightweight meshes with large pores, may be beneficial. Furthermore self-fixing meshes, which avoid increasing the prosthetic load and antibacterial impregnated meshes, may have an advantage in this setting.
KeywordsInoculum Bacterial colonisation Hernia Mesh Self-fixing mesh
Conflict of interest
- 4.Yerdel MA, Akin EB, Dolalan S, Turkcapar AG, Pehlivan M, Gecim IE, Kuterdem E (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(1):26–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.An YH, Friedman RJ (1998) Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 43(3):338–348. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199823)43:3<338:AID-JBM16>3.0.CO;2-B PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Banche G, Roana J, Mandras N, Amasio M, Gallesio C, Allizond V, Angeretti A, Tullio V, Cuffini AM (2007) Microbial adherence on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 65(8):1503–1507. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.10.066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Edmiston CE, Seabrook GR, Goheen MP, Krepel CJ, Johnson CP, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Towne JB (2006) Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures: can antibacterial-coated sutures reduce the risk of microbial contamination? J Am Coll Surg 203(4):481–489. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.06.026 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN, Lambie J, Bond P, Moate R, Steer JA (2012) An experimental study exploring the relationship between the size of bacterial inoculum and bacterial adherence to prosthetic mesh. Surg EndoscGoogle Scholar
- 27.Collins CH (2004) Collins and Lyne’s microbiological methods. In: Collins CH, et al., 8th edn. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 33.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):765–771. doi: 10.1002/jbm.10449 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Stremitzer S, Bachleitner-Hofmann T, Gradl B, Gruenbeck M, Bachleitner-Hofmann B, Mittlboeck M, Bergmann M (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(7):1702–1709. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0543-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Kingsnorth A, Gingell-Littlejohn M, Nienhuijs S, Schule S, Appel P, Ziprin P, Eklund A, Miserez M, Smeds S (2012) 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. Hernia. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-0900-y Google Scholar
- 44.Bellon JM, Garcia-Carranza A, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martin A, Bujan J (2004) Tissue integration and biomechanical behaviour of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 91(4):489–494. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4451 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Kinnari TJ, Esteban J, Martin-de-Hijas NZ, Sanchez-Munoz O, Sanchez-Salcedo S, Colilla M, Vallet-Regi M, Gomez-Barrena E (2009) Influence of surface porosity and pH on bacterial adherence to hydroxyapatite and biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics. J Med Microbiol 58(Pt 1):132–137. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.002758-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar