pp 1–7 | Cite as

Recurrence of infection and hernia following partial versus complete removal of infected hernia mesh: a systematic review and cohort meta-analysis

  • M. GachabayovEmail author
  • S. Gogna
  • G. George
  • D. Samson
  • R. Latifi
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Forum on Complexities in Hernia



The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether complete removal of infected hernia mesh (CMR) provides better results as compared to partial removal (PMR).


PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE via Ovid were systematically searched for records published from 1980 to 2018 by three independent researchers (GM, GS, and GG). Quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Mantel–Haenszel method with odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (OR (95% CI)) as the measure of effect size of dichotomous primary and secondary endpoints was utilized. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.


Five observational studies totaling 421 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Rates of infection recurrence were 58.5% (62/106) in PMR and 25.5% (62/315) in CMR. The difference was statistically significant [OR (95% CI) 4.15 (2.30, 7.47); p < 0.001]. Rates of hernia recurrence were 9.7% (8/82) in PMR vs. 40.2% (41/102) in CMR. This difference was not statistically significant [OR (95% CI) 0.25 (0.04, 1.62); p = 0.15]. Low risk of publication bias was found using funnel plots and Egger’s test.


This meta-analysis found significantly increased rates of infection recurrence in patients undergoing partial removal of infected hernia mesh as compared to complete removal. Complete removal of infected hernia mesh may be associated with increased rates of hernia recurrence. Further longitudinal observational studies are needed to confirm these findings.


Hernia mesh Mesh infection Surgical removal Excision Surgical site infection 


Author contributions

All authors have contributed to the following: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study ethical approval is not required.

Human and animal rights

This paper represents a summary design study. Hence, no human subjects or animals were involved.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Billroth T (1924) The Medical Sciences in the German Universities: a study in the history of civilization. Welch WH, ed. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baylon K, Rodriguez-Camarillo P, Elias-Zuniga A et al (2017) Past, present and future of surgical meshes: a review. Membranes (Basel) 7(3):47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lockhart K, Dunn D, Teo S et al (2018) Mesh versus non-mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:011517Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandalà V, Bilardo G, Darca F et al (2000) Some considerations on the use of heterologous prostheses in incisional hernias at risk of infection. Hernia 4:268–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mandalà V. Use of prosthetic materials in incisional hernia with a septic risk. In: Robert B, eds. Abdominal wall hernias; 2001. New York: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campanelli G, Nicolosi FM, Pettinari D, Avesani EC (2004) Prosthetic repair, intestinal resection, and potentially contaminated areas: safe and feasible? Hernia 8(3):190–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tubre DJ, Schroeder AD, Estes J, Eisenga J, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr (2018) Surgical site infection: the "Achilles Heel" of all types of abdominal wall hernia reconstruction. Hernia 22(6):1003–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, vol 4. Wiley, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bueno-Lledó J, Torregrosa-Gallud A, Carreño-Saénz O et al (2017) Partial versus complete removal of the infected mesh after abdominal wall hernia repair. Am J Surg 214(1):47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung L, Tse GH, O'Dwyer PJ (2014) Outcome of patients with chronic mesh infection following abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia 18(5):701–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kao AM, Arnold MR, Otero J et al (2019) Comparison of outcomes after partial versus complete mesh excision. Ann Surg. ahead of print) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levy S, Moszkowicz D, Poghosyan T et al (2018) Comparison of complete versus partial mesh removal for the treatment of chronic mesh infection after abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia 22(5):773–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tolino MJ, Tripoloni DE, Ratto R, Garcia MI (2009) Infections associated with prosthetic repairs of abdominal wall hernias: pathology, management and results. Hernia 13(6):631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aguilar B, Chapital AB, Madura JA 2nd, Harold KL (2010) Conservative management of mesh-site infection in hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20(3):249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trunzo JA, Ponsky JL, Jin J, Williams CP, Rosen MJ (2009) A novel approach for salvaging infected prosthetic mesh after ventral hernia repair. Hernia 13(5):545–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paton BL, Novitsky YW, Zerey M, Sing RF, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Management of infections of polytetrafluoroethylene-based mesh. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 8(3):337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meagher H, ClarkeMoloney M, Grace PA (2015) Conservative management of mesh-site infection in hernia repair surgery: a case series. Hernia 19(2):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ruiz-Tovar J, ReyIbarra A, DevesaMúgica JM (2011) Conservative management of hernia mesh infection. Rev Gastroenterol Peru 31(4):386–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alston D, Parnell S, Hoonjan B, Sebastian A, Howard A (2013) Conservative management of an infected laparoscopic hernia mesh: a case study. Int J Surg Case Rep 4(11):1035–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alston D, Parnell S, Hoonjan B, Sebastian A, Howard A (2014) Comment on: Conservative management of an infected laparoscopic hernia mesh: a case study. Int J Surg Case Rep 5(6):306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kao AM, Arnold MR, Augenstein VA, Heniford BT (2018) Prevention and treatment strategies for mesh infection in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(3 Suppl):149S–155SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang H, Xiong Y, Chen J, Shen Y (2019) Study of mesh infection management following inguinal hernioplasty with an analysis of risk factors: a 10-year experience. Hernia. ahead of print) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chowbey PK, Khullar R, Sharma A et al (2015) Laparoscopic management of infected mesh after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(2):125–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rehman S, Khan S, Pervaiz A, Perry EP (2012) Recurrence of inguinal herniae following removal of infected prosthetic meshes: a review of the literature. Hernia 16(2):123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fawole AS, Chaparala RP, Ambrose NS (2006) Fate of the inguinal hernia following removal of infected prosthetic mesh. Hernia 10(1):58–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, Hakakha M (1994) Biomaterials for abdominal wall hernia surgery and principles of their applications. Langenbecks Arch Chir 379(3):168–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coda A, Lamberti R, Martorana S (2012) Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial. Hernia 16(1):9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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(1):67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ventral Hernia Working Group, Breuing K, Butler CE et al (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 148(3):544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Engelsman AF, van Dam GM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Ploeg RJ (2010) In vivo evaluation of bacterial infection involving morphologically different surgical meshes. Ann Surg 251(1):133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kathju S, Nistico L, Melton-Kreft R, Lasko LA, Stoodley P (2015) Direct demonstration of bacterial biofilms on prosthetic mesh after ventral herniorrhaphy. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 16(1):45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gachabayov M, Gogna S, Latifi R (2019) En bloc removal of infected hernia mesh rather than “blue-ectomy”. Hernia. ahead of print) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical CenterNew York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA

Personalised recommendations