Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Searching for the best polypropylene mesh to be used in bowel contamination

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

There is still some concern about the use of polypropylene in case of infection or contamination. The biocompatibility of the recently introduced light-weight polypropylene meshes seems to be promising. This experimental study was designed to evaluate three different weights and pore sizes of polypropylene meshes in a contamination model.

Methods

Thirty rabbits were operated through a pararectal incision. The abdomen, wound and mesh were contaminated with faecal fluid aspirated from the appendix. Groups of ten animals were studied according to three different pore sizes of polypropylene mesh implanted as an inlay technique: very large pore, large pore and medium pore. Five animals of each group were sacrificed on days 21 and 90. Incisional surgical site infection and microbiologic cultures on the 21st and 90th days were the main outcome measures. Tissue integration, shrinkage and biomechanical properties were also tested.

Results

Two rabbits died on day 1. There were six incisional surgical site infections (21.4%). Four animals had positive cultures with no macroscopic infection. None of the surviving rabbits with very large pore mesh had clinical infection or positive microbiologic cultures. Very large pore meshes shrank significantly more on day 21. There were no differences in the tensiometric test results.

Conclusions

In our experimental model, low-weight, very large pore polypropylene meshes seem to be the best polypropylene mesh in case of intestinal contamination. These results encourage clinical investigation on the use of low-weight, very large pore polypropylene meshes in the treatment and prevention of hernias in the presence of clean-contaminated or contaminated fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campanelli G, Nicolosi FM, Pettinari D, Avesani EC (2004) Prosthetic repair, intestinal resection, and potentially contaminated areas: safe and feasible? Hernia 8:190–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 11:41–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 251:133–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ott R, Hartwig T, Tannapfel A, Blatz R, Rodloff AC, Madaj-Sterba P, Möbius Ch, Köckerling F (2007) Biocompatibility of bacterial contaminated prosthetic meshes and porcine dermal collagen used to repair abdominal wall defects. Langenbecks Arch Surg 392:473–478

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelly ME, Behrman SW (2002) The safety and efficacy of prosthetic hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds. Am Surg 68:524–528

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aydinuraz K, Ağalar C, Ağalar F, Ceken S, Duruyürek N, Vural T (2009) In vitro S. epidermidis and S. aureus adherence to composite and lightweight polypropylene grafts. J Surg Res 157:e79–e86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG (1992) CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control 20:271–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Weyhe D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O, Grabs R, Müller KM, Uhl W, Zumtobel V (2006) Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 30:1586–1591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gonzalez R, Fugate K, McClusky D 3rd, Ritter EM, Lederman A, Dillehay D, Smith CD, Ramshaw BJ (2005) Relationship between tissue ingrowth and mesh contraction. World J Surg 29:1038–1043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, AP AP, Klosterhalfen B (2002) Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 63:129–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V (2002) Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 103:208–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12:63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Earle DB, Mark LA (2008) Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am 88:179–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Falagas ME, Kasiakou SK (2005) Mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery. Clin Microbiol Infect 11:3–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Strzelczyk JM, Szymański D, Nowicki ME, Wilczyński W, Gaszynski T, Czupryniak L (2006) Randomized clinical trial of postoperative hernia prophylaxis in open bariatric surgery. Br J Surg 93:1347–1350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wysocki A, Pozniczek M, Krzywon J, Bolt L (2001) Use of polypropylene prostheses for strangulated inguinal and incisional hernias. Hernia 5:105–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pans A, Desaive C, Jacquet N (1997) Use of a preperitoneal prosthesis for strangulated groin hernia. Br J Surg 84:310–312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Vix J, Meyer Ch, Rohr S, Bourtoul Ch (1997) The treatment of incisional and abdominal hernia with a prosthesis in potentially infected tissues—a series of 47 cases. Hernia 1:157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Geisler DJ, Reilly JC, Vaughan SG, Glennon EJ, Kondylis PD (2003) Safety and outcome of use of nonabsorbable mesh for repair of fascial defects in the presence of open bowel. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1118–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kasperk R, Klinge U, Schumpelick V (2000) The repair of large parastomal hernias using a midline approach and a prosthetic mesh in the sublay position. Am J Surg 179:186–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Serra-Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J, Darnell A, Mora-Lopez L, Alcantara-Moral M, Ayguavives-Garnica I, Navarro-Soto S (2009) Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 249:583–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA (2009) Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a randomized study. World J Surg 33:118–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 22:1941–1946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guirao X, Arias J, Badía JM, García-Rodríguez JA, Mensa J, Alvarez-Lerma F, Borges M, Barberán J, Maseda E, Salavert M, Llinares P, Gobernado M, García Rey C (2010) Recommendations in the empiric anti-infective agents of intra-abdominal infection. Cir Esp 87:63–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bleichrodt RP, Simmermacher RK, van der Lei B, Schakenraad JM (1993) Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch versus polypropylene mesh for the repair of contaminated defects of the abdominal wall. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176:18–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 63:765–771

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2004) In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc 18:211–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD, Carbonell AM, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 136:1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Stone HH, Fabian TC, Turkleson ML, Jurkiewicz MJ (1981) Management of acute full-thickness losses of the abdominal wall. Ann Surg 193:612–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schmitt HJ Jr, Grinnan GL (1967) Use of Marlex mesh in infected abdominal war wound. Am J Surg 113:825–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Coda A, Bendavid R, Botto-Micca F, Bossotti M, Bona A (2003) Structural alterations of prosthetic meshes in humans. Hernia 7:29–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bellón JM, García-Carranza A, García-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martín A, Buján J (2004) Tissue integration and biomechanical behaviour of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 91:489–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bellón JM, Rodríguez M, García-Honduvilla N, Gómez-Gil V, Pascual G, Buján J (2009) Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 89B:448–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Jose P. Novalbos, M.D., Cádiz University, for his advice on the evaluation of the results and Jose M. Báez, M.D., Ph.D., Cádiz University for the pathologic examination.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Cádiz University, Cádiz, Spain

    A. Díaz-Godoy & V. Vega Ruíz

  2. Department of Surgery, Henares Hospital, Avda. de Marie Curie s/n, 28822, Coslada, Madrid, Spain

    M. Á. García-Ureña, J. López-Monclús & D. Melero Montes

  3. Department of Microbiology, Cádiz University, Cádiz, Spain

    N. Erquinigo Agurto

Authors
  1. A. Díaz-Godoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Á. García-Ureña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. López-Monclús
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. Vega Ruíz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Melero Montes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. N. Erquinigo Agurto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Á. García-Ureña.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 15572 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Díaz-Godoy, A., García-Ureña, M.Á., López-Monclús, J. et al. Searching for the best polypropylene mesh to be used in bowel contamination. Hernia 15, 173–179 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0762-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0762-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation