, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 235–243 | Cite as

Mesh migration following abdominal hernia repair: a comprehensive review

  • H. B. CunninghamEmail author
  • J. J. Weis
  • L. R. Taveras
  • S. Huerta



This study reviewed the literature regarding mesh migration in abdominal hernia repair. The aim of this study is to interrogate incidence, common type of abdominal hernia repair leading to migration, patterns of mesh migration, and materials associated with migration.


A comprehensive literature review was conducted. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched for relevant articles in the English literature. We employed Ovid syntax from 1949 to January 2010, the Cochrane Library, Google and Google Scholar. The clinical trial database was reviewed. Letters to the editor were reviewed to extract cross-references. Multiple keywords were used alone and in combination to extract all relevant articles.


In total, 287 unique English citations were reviewed. Of these, 84 articles were selected and consisted of 3 case series, 77 case reports, 2 literature reviews, 1 retrospective study, and 1 prospective, observational study. In an analysis of available cases, the average age was 59.8 ± 13.8 years with a male predominance (76.2%). The index hernia repair was inguinal in 62.9%, incisional/ventral in 28.1%, umbilical in 6.7%, and other in 2.2%. Within the inguinal hernia group, 51.8% were open repairs, 42.9% were laparoscopic, and 1.8% were robotic. Implicated mesh materials included polypropylene, PTFE, and composite mesh. Migration commonly affected multiple organs (31.5%).


It is likely that more cases of mesh migration will appear in the literature. Reports are heterogeneous and highlight the diversity of this complication. A standardized method of reporting is needed to develop guidelines and recommendations for this presentation.


Mesh migration Mesh erosion Hernia repair Lichtenstein repair Mesh complications 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

HC declares no conflict of interest. JW declares no conflict of interest. LT declares no conflict of interest. SH declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study is in compliance with ethical standards.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

10029_2019_1898_MOESM1_ESM.docx (152 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 151 KB)


  1. 1.
    Dabbas N et al (2011) Frequency of abdominal wall hernias: is classical teaching out of date? JRSM Short Rep 2(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rutkow IM (1998) Epidemiologic, economic, and sociologic aspects of hernia surgery in the United States in the 1990s. Surg Clin North Am 78(6):941 –941 51, v-viCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rutkow IM (1997) Surgical operations in the United States. Then (1983) and now (1994). Arch Surg 132(9):983–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rutkow IM (2003) Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin North Am 83(5):1045–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shouldice EB (2003) The Shouldice repair for groin hernias. Surg Clin North Am 83(5):1163–1187, viiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burger JW et al. (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240(4): 578–583 (discussion 583-5)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arroyo A et al (2001) Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 88(10):1321–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luijendijk RW et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343(6):392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aldridge AJ, Nehra D (2001) Mesh compared with non-mesh methods of open groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trials and laparoscopic compared with open methods of groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 88(3):471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL (1994) A critical evaluation of the Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty. Int Surg 79(1):76–79Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Forse RA (2015) Clinical practice. Groin hernias in adults. N Engl J Med 372(8):756–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berger RL et al (2014) Suture versus preperitoneal polypropylene mesh for elective umbilical hernia repairs. J Surg Res 192(2):426–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghanim A et al (2017) Mesh Migration into the j-pouch in a patient with post-ulcerative colitis colectomy: a case report and literature review. Case Rep Surg 2017:3617476Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hume RH, Bour J (1996) Mesh migration following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Surg 6(5):333–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chuback JA et al (2000) Small bowel obstruction resulting from mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernia repair. Surgery 127(4):475–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dieter RA Jr (1999) Mesh plug migration into scrotum: a new complication of hernia repair. Int Surg 84(1):57–59Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xue TM et al (2015) Mesh erosion causes small bowel obstruction: a rare complication of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: case description and review of literature. Hepatogastroenterology 62(137):55–58Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Celik A et al (2005) Colonoscopic removal of inguinal hernia mesh: report of a case and literature review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 15(4):408–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agrawal A, Avill R (2006) Mesh migration following repair of inguinal hernia: a case report and review of literature. Hernia 10(1):79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goswami R, Babor M, Ojo A (2007) Mesh erosion into caecum following laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia (TAPP): a case report and literature review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 17(5):669–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hinojosa MW, Wright AS, Oelschlager BK (2015) The use of mesh in hiatal hernia repair. In: Antireflux surgery. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pfluke JM et al (2012) Use of mesh for hiatal hernia repair: a survey of SAGES members. Surg Endosc 26(7):1843–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kohn GP et al (2018) Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. [Webpage]. Available at: Accessed 6 Aug 2018
  24. 24.
    Kocot A, Gerharz EW, Riedmiller H (2011) Urological complications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a case series. Hernia 15(5):583–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riaz AA et al (2004) Mesh erosion into the bladder: a late complication of incisional hernia repair. A case report and review of the literature. Hernia 8(2):158–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Endlich M et al (2015) Implantation of a total abdominal mesh plastic ending up in multiple, lethal right heart injuries. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 21(1):135–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker SG et al (2017) Nomenclature in abdominal wall Hernias: is It time for consensus? World J Surg 41(10):2488–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lo DJ, Bilimoria KY, Pugh CM (2008) Bowel complications after prolene hernia system (PHS) repair: a case report and review of the literature. Hernia 12(4):437–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Millas SG, Mesar T, Patel RJ (2015) Chronic abdominal pain after ventral hernia due to mesh migration and erosion into the sigmoid colon from a distant site: a case report and review of literature. Hernia 19(5):849–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gandhi D et al (2011) Chronic abdominal pain secondary to mesh erosion into cecum following incisional hernia repair: a case report and literature review. Ann Gastroenterol 24(4):321–324Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jeans S, Williams GL, Stephenson BM (2007) Migration after open mesh plug inguinal hernioplasty: a review of the literature. Am Surg 73(3):207–209Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Acar T et al (2002) Enterocutaneous fistula due to polypropylene mesh migration. Ir J Med Sci 171(3):172, 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    HerniaSurge G (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22(1):1–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ismail W, Agrawal A, Zia MI (2002) Fate of chronically infected onlay mesh in groin wound. Hernia 6(2):79–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Di Vita G et al (2000) Tension-free hernia repair is associated with an increase in inflammatory response markers against the mesh. Am J Surg 180(3):203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matthews BD et al (2003) Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114(2):126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Matthews BD et al (2005) Evaluation of adhesion formation and host tissue response to intra-abdominal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh and composite prosthetic mesh. J Surg Res 123(2):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Harrell AG et al (2006) Prospective evaluation of adhesion formation and shrinkage of intra-abdominal prosthetics in a rabbit model. Am Surg 72(9):808–813 (discussion 813–4) Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gonzalez R et al (2005) Relationship between tissue ingrowth and mesh contraction. World J Surg 29(8):1038–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ferrone R, Scarone PC, Natalini G (2003) Late complication of open inguinal hernia repair: small bowel obstruction caused by intraperitoneal mesh migration. Hernia 7(3):161–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ramakrishnan P et al (2016) A single-centre experience of relaparoscopy in complications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair-feasibility and outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(6):2308–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shrivastava A et al (2013) Erosion of small intestine with necrotising fasciitis of over lying abdominal wall after expanded poly-tetrafluoroethylene mesh implantation: a rare complication after laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. J Minim Access Surg 9(3):138–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ratajczak A et al (2013) Migration of biomaterials used in gastroenterological surgery. Pol Przegl Chir 85(7):377–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas SouthwesternDallasUSA
  2. 2.University of Texas SouthwesternDallasUSA
  3. 3.VA North Texas Health Care SystemDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations