Advertisement

Biological Prosthesis in Inguinal Hernia Repair

  • Stefano Lafranceschina
  • Fausto Catena
  • Luca Ansaloni
  • Mario Testini
Chapter

Abstract

Controversies still exist about the indications in using the different materials and principally about the biological ones. Potential or certain contamination of the surgical wound poses a dilemma as the use of nonabsorbable synthetic material historically is considered contraindicated, given the risk of postoperative infectious complicationsand need for mesh removal. The introduction of biological prosthesis (BP) has provided an alternative. Either allograft or xenograft, BP might be better able to tolerate bacterial contamination and have a lower incidence of surgical site infection. Furthermore, the complexity of hernias could derive also from tissue loss, dimensions, anatomic position and clinical or pharmacological data: based on pathophysiological characteristics, BP could act as a valid alternative not only in contaminated fields. It is likely to extend their possibilities of use in uncontaminated fields: the BP remodelling process would be favoured not only by its intrinsic characteristics but also by a less pronounced inflammatory reaction in respect to their use in contaminated fields. In contrast to current nonabsorbable prosthetic repairs, where the prosthesis is intended to strengthen the defect life-long, the extracellular matrix of BP implanted into the host has a direct strengthening function only initially. Subsequentially, the matrix is gradually degraded while inducing neovascularization and colonization by host cells that progressively cause a site-specific remodelling process until the reconstruction of a new and mature autologous fascia is complete. The proposed advantage of BP is that the patient’s immune cells can infiltrate the material to defend against the bacterial load and eventually replace the biologic mesh with the host tissue. The best operative solution for hernia repair in clean, clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds and in emergency hernia surgery remains not clear. However, the price of biologic grafts has caused an alarming increase in the cost of abdominal reconstructions. Actually, despite the risk of infections, mesh reinforcement continues to play a critical role in hernia repair, and biologic materials are often promoted for the use in “difficult” situations, especially those with contaminated or infected fields.

References

  1. 1.
    Atema JJ, de Vries FE, Boermeester MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the repair of potentially contaminated and contaminated abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg. 2016;212:982–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gurrado A, Franco IF, Lissidini G, et al. Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study. Hernia. 2015;19:259–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campanelli G, Catena F, Ansaloni L. Prosthetic abdominal wall hernia repair in emergency surgery: from polypropylene to biological meshes. World J Emerg Surg. 2008;3:33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosen MJ, Bauer JJ, Harmaty M, Carbonell AM, et al. Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of the recurrence, surgical site infection and quality of life after contaminated ventral hernia repair using biosynthetic absorbable mesh. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):205–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coccolini F, Agresta F, Bassi A, Catena F, et al. Italian biological prosthesis work-group (IBPWG): proposal for a decisional model in using biological prosthesis. World J Emerg Surg. 2012;7:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, et al. New “biological” meshes: the need for a register. The EHS registry for biological prostheses. Hernia. 2009;13:103–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber-blum S, Brand J, Keibl C, et al. Abdominal wall reinforcement: biologic vs. degradable synthetic devices. Hernia. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1556-9.
  8. 8.
    Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, et al. Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3 year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s repair with polypropilene mesh versus Surgisis inguinal hernia matrix. Am J Surg. 2009;198:303–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fang Z, Feng R, Zhou J, et al. Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85(12):910–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ansaloni L, Catena F, D'Alessandro L. Prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing Lichtenstein’s repair of inguinal hernia with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis gold soft tissue graft: preliminary results. Acta Biomed. 2003;74(Suppl 2):10–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bochicchio GV, Jain A, McGonigal K, et al. Biologic vs synthetic inguinal hernia repair: 1-year results of a randomized double-blinded trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(4):751–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bellows CF, Shadduck P, Helton WS, et al. Early report of a randomized comparative clinical trial of Strattice™ reconstructive tissue matrix to lightweight synthetic mesh in the repair of inguinal hernias. Hernia. 2014;18(2):221–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Majumder A, Winder JS, Wen Y, et al. Comparative analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh outcomes in contaminated hernia repairs. Surgery. 2016;160:828–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Breuring K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of literature and reccomandations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148:544–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Lafranceschina
    • 1
  • Fausto Catena
    • 2
  • Luca Ansaloni
    • 3
  • Mario Testini
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit of Endocrine, Digestive and Emergency Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human OncologyUniversity Medical School of BariBariItaly
  2. 2.Department of Emergency and Trauma SurgeryUniversity Hospital of ParmaParmaItaly
  3. 3.Unit of General Surgery IOspedali Riuniti of BergamoBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations