Skip to main content

Mesh ingrowth with concomitant bacterial infection resulting in inability to explant: a failure of mesh salvage

Abstract

Purpose

Removal is the standard treatment for mesh infection following prosthetic hernia repair. However, certain types of mesh may be less amenable to removal even in the setting of active infection; we present four such cases, all involving the same composite mesh.

Methods

Four high-risk patients underwent Parietex mesh implantation for large ventral wall hernias and developed subsequent Staphylococcus infections with attempted explantation of infected mesh and wound care.

Results

There was inability to completely explant mesh in all four cases, leading to chronic purulent wounds and long-term complications.

Conclusion

While mesh infection is a recognized complication of prosthetic hernia repair, many synthetic meshes form a slimy biofilm and thus can be removed relatively easily. However, the structural qualities of certain types of mesh create ingrowth into tissues even in the setting of infection, resulting in inability to explant with subsequent long-term chronic wound complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Falagas ME, Kasiakou SK (2005) Mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery. Clin Microbiol Infect 11:3–8. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01014.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Machairas A, Misiakos EP, Liakakos T, Karatzas G (2004) Incisional hernioplasty with extraperitoneal onlay polyester mesh. Am Surg 70:726–729

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Trunzo JA, Ponsky JL, Jin J et al (2009) A novel approach for salvaging infected prosthetic mesh after ventral hernia repair. Hernia 13:545–549. doi:10.1007/s10029-009-0470-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berrevoet F, Vanlander A, Sainz-Barriga M et al (2012) Infected large pore meshes may be salvaged by topical negative pressure therapy. Hernia 17:67–73. doi:10.1007/s10029-012-0969-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Halm JA, Wall LL, Steyerberg EW et al (2006) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31:423–429. doi:10.1007/s00268-006-0317-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gray SHS, Vick CCC, Graham LAL et al (2008) Risk of complications from enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection during elective hernia repair. Arch Surg 143:582–586. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.6.582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Robinson TN, Clarke JH, Schoen J, Walsh MD (2005) Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair: events reported to the Food And Drug Administration. Surg Endosc 19:1556–1560. doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0120-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Matthews BDB, Pratt BLB, Pollinger HSH et al (2003) Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114:126–132. doi:10.1016/S0022-4804(03)00158-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bendavid R (1994) Prostheses and abdominal wall hernias. R. G, Landes

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jacob BP, Hogle NJ, Durak E et al (2007) Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus proceed versus parietex composite. Surg Endosc 21:629–633. doi:10.1007/s00464-006-9157-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klosterhalfen BB, Klinge UU, Hermanns BB, Schumpelick VV (2000) Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans. Chirurg 71:43–51

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Ploeg RJ, Busscher HJ (2007) The phenomenon of infection with abdominal wall reconstruction. Biomaterials 28:2314–2327. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.01.028

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Ploeg RJ (2008) Morphological aspects of surgical meshes as a risk factor for bacterial colonization. Br J Surg 95:1051–1059. doi:10.1002/bjs.6154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerberg B et al (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. doi:10.1002/jbm.10449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Merritt K, Shafer JW, Brown SA (1979) Implant site infection rates with porous and dense materials. J Biomed Mater Res 13:101–108. doi:10.1002/jbm.820130111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gottenbos B, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ (2000) Initial adhesion and surface growth of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on biomedical polymers. J Biomed Mater Res 50:208–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deeken CR, Faucher KM, Matthews BD (2012) A review of the composition, characteristics, and effectiveness of barrier mesh prostheses utilized for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 26:566–575. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1899-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Schumpelick V, Tietze L (2000) Polymers in hernia repair—common polyester vs. polypropylene surgical meshes. Journal of materials science 35:4769–4776

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stremitzer S, Bachleitner-Hofmann T, Gradl B et al (2010) Mesh graft infection following abdominal hernia repair: risk factor evaluation and strategies of mesh graft preservation. A retrospective analysis of 476 operations. World J Surg 34:1702–1709. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0543-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leber GEG, Garb JLJ, Alexander AIA, Reed WPW (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133:378–382. doi:10.1001/archsurg.133.4.378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Petersen S, Henke G, Freitag M et al (2001) Deep prosthesis infection in incisional hernia repair: predictive factors and clinical outcome. Eur J Surg 167:453–457. doi:10.1080/110241501750243815

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paton BL, Novitsky YW, Zerey M et al (2007) Management of infections of polytetrafluoroethylene-based mesh. Surg Infect 8:337–341. doi:10.1089/sur.2006.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sabbagh C, Verhaeghe P, Brehant O et al (2012) Partial removal of infected parietal meshes is a safe procedure. Hernia 16:445–449. doi:10.1007/s10029-012-0931-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gillion J-F, Palot J-P (2012) Abdominal wall incisional hernias: infected prosthesis: treatment and prevention. J Visc Surg 149:e20–e31. doi:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2012.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

MH declares no conflict of interest. SD declares no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Hanna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hanna, M., Dissanaike, S. Mesh ingrowth with concomitant bacterial infection resulting in inability to explant: a failure of mesh salvage. Hernia 19, 339–344 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1330-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1330-9

Keywords

  • Parietex composite mesh
  • Hernia
  • Adhesions
  • Infection
  • Collagen