Advertisement

Hernia

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 15–21 | Cite as

Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery

  • P. K. Amid
Original Articles

Summary

The value of the use of biomaterials for the repair of abdominal wall hernias is gaining increasing recognition. The use of synthetic mesh to achieve a tension-free repair has resulted in a significant reduction in postoperative pain, in length of the recovery period, and in the number of recurrences. However, certain physical properties of biomaterials can lead to undesirable consequences. These include increased risk of infection, seroma formation, biomaterial-related intestinal obstruction, and fistula formation and failure of repair due to shrinkage of the mesh. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the mechanism of these problems with special emphasis on pore size, molecular permeation and shrinkage of biomaterials and their effects on infection, seroma formation, and recurrence of mesh repair of abdominal wall hernias.

Key words

Biomaterials Mesh Mesh plug Tension-free repair Mesh complications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alxander JW, Kaplan JZ, Altmeier WA (1967) Role of suture materials in the development of wound infection. Ann Surg 165 192–1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amid PK, Lichtenstein ILL (1996) Retromusculare Alloplastik groBer Narbenruche: eine einfache Heftklammertechnik. Chirurg 67: 648–652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL (1992) Selecting synthetic mesh for the repair of groin hernia. Postgrad Gen Surg 4: 1505Google Scholar
  4. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, Sostrin S, Young J, Hakakha M (1994a) An experimental evaluation of a new composite mesh with the selective property of incorporation to the abdominal wall without adhering to the intestines. Biomed Materials Res 28: 373–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL (1994b) A simple stapling technique for the prosthetic repair of massive incisional hernias. In: Arregui ME, Nagan RF (eds) Inguinal hernia advances or controversies? Radcliffe Medical Press, Oxford New York, pp. 511–514Google Scholar
  6. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, Sostrin S, Young J, Hakakha M (1995a) Evaluation préliminaire de matériels composites pour la réparation des éventrations. Annales de Chirurgie 49: 539–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, Hakakha M (1995b) The goals of modern hernia surgery. How to achieve them: open or laparoscopic repairs? Problems in General Surgery 12: 165–171Google Scholar
  8. Arnaud JP, Eloy R, Adloff M, Grenier JF (1977) Critical evaluation of prosthetic materials in repair of abdominal wall hernias. New criteria of tolerance and resistance. Am J Surg 133: 338–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berliner SD (1994) Biomaterials in hernia surgery. In: Arregui ME, Nagan RF (eds) Inguinal hernia advances or controvesies? Radcliffe Medical Press, Oxford New York, pp. 103–106Google Scholar
  10. Bobyn JD, Wilson Gj, MacGregor DC, Pilliar RM, Weatherly Gc (1982) Effect of pore size on the peel strength of attachement of fibrous tissue to porous-surfaced implants. J Biomed Mater Res, pp 571–584Google Scholar
  11. Capozzi JA, Berkenfield JA, Cheaty JK (1988) Repair of inguinal hernia in the adult with prolene mesh. Surg Gynecol Obstet 167: 124–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Crist D, Gadasz T (1993)_Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Clin North Am 73: 265–289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. DeBord JR, Wyffels PL, Marshall JS, Miller G, Marxhall WH (1992) Repair of large ventral incisional hernias with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene prosthetic patch. Postgrad Gen Surg 4: 156–160Google Scholar
  14. DeGuzman LJ, Nyhus LM, Yared G, Schlesinger PK (1995) Colocutaneous fistula formation following polypropylene mesh placement for epair of a ventral hernia: diagnosis by colonoscopy. Endoscopy 27: 459–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elek SD, Conen PE (1957) The virulence of Staphylococcus pyogenes for man. Study of the problems of wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol 38: 573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Flament JB, Palot JP (1994) Prostheses and major incisional hernias (Part I). In: Bendavid R (ed) Prostheses and abdominal wall hernias. R.G. Landes Company, Austin, pp. 456–470Google Scholar
  17. Hume RH, Bour J (1996) Mesh migration following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Surg 6: 333–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones JW, Jurkovich GJ (1989) Polypropylene mesh closure of infected abdominal wounds. Am Surgeon 55: 73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaufman Z, Engelberg M, Zager M (1981) Fecal fistula — a late complication of Marlex mesh repair. Dis Colon Rectum 24: 543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson GM, Harrower HW (1978) Plastic mesh repair of incisional hernias. Am J Surg 135: 559–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law NW, Ellis H (1990) Preliminary results for the repair of difficult recurrent inguinal hernias using expanded PTFE patch. Acta Chir Scan, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  22. Law N, Ellis H (1991) A comparison of polypropylene mesh and expanded PTFE patch for the repair of contaminated abdominal wall defect. Surgery 109: 652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin RE, Sureik S, Clossen JN (1982) Polypropylene mesh in 450 hernia repairs: evaluation of wound infections. Contemp Surg 20: 46Google Scholar
  24. Matapurkar BG, Gupta AK, Agarwal AK (1991) A new technique of ≪Marlex-Peritoneal Sandwich≫ in the repair of large incisional hernias. World J Surg 15: 768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merritt K, Shafer JW, Brown SA (1979) Implant site infection with porous and dense materials. J Biomed Mater Res 13 101–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molloy RG, Moan KT, Waldron RP, et al (1991) Massive incisional hernias: abdominal wall replacement with Marlex mesh. Br J Surg 78: 242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Neel HB III (1983) Implants of Gore-tex. Arch Otolaryngol 109: 427–433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Notaras MJ (1974) Experience with Mersilene mesh in abdominal wall repair. Proc R Soc Med 67: 45–48Google Scholar
  29. Rath AM, Zhang J, Amourceux J, Chevrel JP (1996) Les prothèses pariètales abdominales: étude biomécanique et histologique. Chir 121: 253–265Google Scholar
  30. Schneider R, Herrington JL Jr, Granada AM (1970) The mesh repair of a diaphragmatic defect later on into the distal esophagus and stomach. Am Surg 45: 339Google Scholar
  31. Seelig MH, Kaperk R Tietze L, Schumpelick V (1995) Enterocutaneous fistula after Marlex net implantation. A rare complication after incisional hernia repair. Chirurg 66: 739–741PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith RS (1971) The use of prosthetic materials in the repair of hernias. Surg Clin North Am 51: 1387–1399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Soler M, Verhaeghe P, Essomba A, Sevestre H, Stoppa R (1993) Treatment of postoperative incisional hernias by a composite prosthesis (polyester-polyglactin 910). Clinical and experimental study, Ann Chir 47: 598–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoppa RE, Rives JL, Warlaumont CR, et al. (1984) The use of Dacron in the repair of hernias of the groin. Surg Clin North Am 64: 269–285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor SR, Gibbons DF (1983) Effect of surface texture on soft tissue response to polymer implants. J Biomed Mater Res 17: 205–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Usher FC, Fries FJ, Ochsner JL Tuttle LLD Jr (1959) Marlex mesh a new plastic mesh for replacing tissue defects II Arch Surg 78: 138–145Google Scholar
  37. White RA (1988) The effect of porosity and biomaterial on the healing and long-term mechanical properties of vascular prostheses. ASAIO 11: 95–100Google Scholar
  38. White RA, Hirose FM, Sproat RW, Lawrence RS, Nelson RJ (1981) Histopathology observations after short-term implantation of two porous elastomers in dogs. Biomaterials 2: 171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. K. Amid
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Lichtenstein Hernia Institute, Inc.Los AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryHarbor-UCLA Medical Center and Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Harbor-UCLA Research and Educational InstituteLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations