Hernia

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 239–246 | Cite as

A retrospective review and observations over a 16-year clinical experience on the surgical treatment of chronic mesh infection. What about replacing a synthetic mesh on the infected surgical field?

  • C. Birolini
  • J. S. de Miranda
  • E. M. Utiyama
  • S. Rasslan
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

To review the short- and long-term results in patients who underwent removal of infected or exposed mesh and reconstruction of the abdominal wall with simultaneous mesh replacement.

Methods

Patients undergoing removal of an infected or exposed mesh and single-staged reconstruction of the abdominal wall with synthetic mesh replacement over a 16-year period were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were operated and followed by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included wound complications and hernia recurrence.

Results

From 1996 until 2012, 41 patients (23 F, 18 M), with a mean age of 53.4 years and mean BMI of 31.2 ± 8 kg/m2, were treated for chronic mesh infection (CMI). A suppurative infection was present in 27 patients, and 14 had an exposed mesh. The need for recurrent incisional hernia repair was observed in 25 patients; bowel resections or other potentially contaminated procedures were associated in 15 patients. The short-term results showed an uneventful post-operative course after mesh replacement in 27 patients; 6 (14.6 %) patients developed a minor wound infection and were treated with dressings and antibiotics; 5 (12 %) patients had wound infections requiring debridement and one required complete mesh removal. On the long-term follow-up, there were three hernia recurrences, one of which demanded a reoperation for enterocutaneous fistula; 95 % of the patients submitted to mesh replacement were considered cured of CMI after a mean follow-up of 74 months.

Conclusions

CMI can be treated by removal of infected mesh; simultaneous mesh replacement prevents hernia recurrence and has an acceptable incidence of post-operative acute infection. Standard polypropylene mesh is a suitable material to be used in the infected surgical field as an onlay graft.

Keywords

Abdominal wall reconstruction Mesh infection Single-staged repair Ventral hernia 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

CB declares no conflict of interests.

JSM declares no conflict of interests.

EMU declares no conflict of interests.

SR declares no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–585PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deysine M, Soroff HS (1990) Must we specialize herniorrhaphy for better results? Am J Surg 160:239–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, Hakakha M (1994) Biomaterials for abdominal wall hernia surgery and principles of their applications. Langenbecks Arch Chir 379:168–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amid P (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall surgery. Hernia 1:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seker D, Kulacoglu H (2011) Long-term complications of mesh repair for abdominal wall hernias. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 21:205–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi JJ, Palaniappa NC, Dallas KB, Rudich TB, Colon MJ, Divino CM (2012) Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases. Ann Surg 255:176–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tolino MJ, Tripoloni DE, Ratto R, Garcia MI (2009) Infections associated with prosthetic repairs of abdominal wall hernias: pathology, management and results. Hernia 13:631–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sabbagh C, Verhaeghe P, Brehant O, Browet F, Garriot B, Regimbeau JM (2012) Partial removal of infected parietal meshes is a safe procedure. Hernia 16:445–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dayton MT, Buchele BA, Shirazi SS, Hunt LB (1986) Use of an absorbable mesh to repair contaminated abdominal wall defects. Arch Surg 121:954–960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szczerba SR, Dumanian GA (2003) Definitive surgical treatment of infected or exposed ventral hernia mesh. Ann Surg 237:437–441PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Geffen HJ, Simmermacher RK, van Vroonhoven TJ, van der Werken C (2005) Surgical treatment of large contaminated abdominal wall defects. J Am Coll Surg 201:206–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosen MJ, Jin J, McGee MF, Williams C, Marks J, Ponsky JL (2007) Laparoscopic component separation in the single-stage treatment of infected abdominal wall prosthetic removal. Hernia 11:435–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson EK, Tushoski PL (2010) Abdominal wall reconstruction in patients with digestive tract fistulas. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 23:195–208CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franklin ME Jr, Treviño JM, Portillo G, Vela I, Glass JL, González JJ (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 22:1941–1946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miserez M, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Schumpelick V (2013) Hernia surgery and contamination: biological mesh and nothing else? Hernia 17:1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto G III, Butler CE, RICH Study Group (2012) Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: the RICH Study. Surgery 152:498–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosen MJ, DeNoto G, Itani KMF, Butler C, vargo D, Smiell J, Rutan R (2013) Evaluation of surgical outcomes of retro-rectus versus intraperitoneal reinforcement with bio-prosthetic mesh in the repair of contaminated ventral hernias. Hernia 17:31–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA (2013) A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 257:991–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alaedeen DI, Lipman J, Medalie D, Rosen MJ (2007) The single-staged approach to the surgical management of abdominal wall hernias in contaminated fields. Hernia 11:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meagher H, Clarke Moloney M, Grace PA (2013) Conservative management of mesh-site infection in hernia repair surgery: a case series. Hernia. doi: 10.1007/s10029-013-1069-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berrevoet F, Vanlander A, Sainz-Barriga M, Rogiers X, Troisi R (2013) Infected large pore meshes may be salvaged by topical negative pressure therapy. Hernia 17:67–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Jacobs MR, Gao Y, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2012) In vivo analysis of the morphologic characteristics of synthetic mesh to resist MRSA adherence. J Gastrointest Surg 16:2139–2144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hicks CW, Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2013) History of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) surgical site infection may not be a contraindication to ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh: a preliminary report. Hernia. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-1035-x PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Birolini
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. S. de Miranda
    • 1
  • E. M. Utiyama
    • 1
  • S. Rasslan
    • 1
  1. 1.General and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of MedicineUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations