Advertisement

Intraperitoneal Prostheses

  • R. K. J. Simmermacher

Abstract

The abdominal wall surrounds and protects the contents of the abdominal cavity and participates in a great variety of functions of the body, including maintenance of the upright position, coughing, and straining. These functions can be guaranteed only by the integrity of the myoaponeurotic part of the abdominal wall. Defects of this part of the abdominal wall include primary full-thickness loss due to external violence, en bloc resection of neoplasia or necrotizing infection or secondary pathology such as a long-standing incisional hernia causing retraction of the muscles; such defects interfere with abdominal wall function and should therefore be repaired.

Keywords

Abdominal Wall Incisional Hernia Polypropylene Mesh Adhesion Formation Abdominal Wall Defect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Herszage L. Personal communication, Hilversum, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barroetavena J, Herszage L, Tibaudin H, et al. Cirugia de las eventraciones. Buenos Aires, El Ateneo; 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stone HH, Fabian TC, Turkelson ML, et al. Management of acute full-thickness losses of the abdominal wall. Ann Surg. 1981;611–618.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990; 86:519–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goñi-Moreno I. Chronic eventrations and large hernias. Surgery. 1947; 22:945.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobsen WM, Petty PM, Bite U, et al. Massive abdominal-wall hernia reconstruction with expanded external/internal oblique and transversalis musculofascia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997; 100:326–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rodgers BM, Maher JW, Talbert JL. The use of preserved human dura for closure of abdominal wall and diaphragmatic defects. Ann Surg. 1981; 193:606–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durstein-Decker C, Brick WG, Gadacz TR, et al. Comparison of adhesion formation in transperitoneal laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Techniques Am Surg. 1994; 60:157–159.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, et al. Biomaterials for abdominal wall hernia surgery and principles of their application. Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1994; 379:168–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldstein HS. Selecting the right mesh. Hernia. 1999; 3:23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Root M, Lockhart JL, Vorstman A, et al. Long-term follow-up with the use of lyophilized dura mater for abdominal wall closure in children: report of 3 cases. J Urol. 1992; 148:858–860.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Pascual G, et al. Neoperitoneal formation after implantation of various biomaterials for the repair of abdominal wall defects in rabbits. Eur J Surg. 1999;165:145–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gross E, Eigler FW. Prostheses for abdominal wall closure in postoperative peritonitis, incisional hernia and reconstruction of the abdominal wall. Z_Chir. 1984; 109:1238–1250.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greene MA, Mullins RJ, Malangoni MA, et al. Laparotomy wound closure with absorbable polyglycolic acid mesh. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993; 176:213–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rokitansky AM, Kolankaya A, Semsroth M. Patchplasty with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and skinplasty for the closure of large congenital abdominal wall defects. Pediatr Surg Int. 1994; 9:227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Witzel O. Ueber den verschluss von bruchwunden und bruchpforten durch versenkte silberdrahtnetze. Centralbl F Chir Leipz. 1900; 27:257.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koontz AR. Preliminary report on the use of tantalum mesh in the repair of ventral hernia. Ann Surg. 1948; 127:1079–1085.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Usher FC, Wallace SA. Tissue reactions to plastics. Arch Surg. 1958; 76:997–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liakakos T, Karanikas I, Panagiotidis H, et al. Use of Marlex mesh in the repair of recurrent hernia. Br J Surg. 1994; 81:248–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murphy JL, Freeman JB, Dionne PG. Comparison of Marlex and Gore-Tex to repair abdominal wall defects in the rat. Can J Surg. 1989; 32: 244–247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iglesia CB, Fenner DE, Brubaker L. The use of mesh in gynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 1997;8:105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaufman Z, Engelberg M, Zager M. Fecal fistula: a late complication of Marlex mesh repair. Dis Colon Rectum. 1981; 24:543–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trupka AW, Hallfeldt KKJ, Schmidbauer S, et al. Die Versorgung komplizierter narbenhernien mit einem in underlay-technik implantierten polypropylennetz. Chirurgie. 1998; 69:766–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, et al. Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg. 1998; 164:965–969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Attwood SEA, Caldwell MTP, Marks P, et al. A comparison of extra-versus intraperitoneal placement of a polypropylene mesh in an animal model. Surg Endosc. 1994; 8:77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pans A, Pierard GE. A comparison of intraperitoneal prostheses for the repair of abdominal muscular wall defects in rats. Eur Surg Res. 1992; 24:54–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adloff M, Arnaud JP. Surgical management of large incisional hernias by an intraperitoneal Mersilene mesh and an aponeurotic graft. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1987; 165:204–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cubertafond P, Sava P, Gainant A. Cure chirurgicale des éventrations post-operatoires par plaque prothétique. 62 observations. Chirurgie. 1989; 15:66–71.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soler M, Verhaeghe P, Essomba A, et al. Le traitement des éventrations post-operatoires par prothèse composée (polyester-polyglactine 910). Ann Chir. 1993; 47:598–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drainer IK, Reid DK. Recurrence-free ventral herniorrhaphy using a polypropylene mesh prosthesis. J R Coll Edinb. 1972; 17:253–260.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tizian C, Demuth RJ, Glass KD, et al. Evaluation of microvascular prosthesis of microporous polytetrafluoroethylene. J Surg Res. 1981; 30:159–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Toy FK Rationale for the use of ePTFE in the intraperitoneal position. In Arrequi ME, Nagan RF (eds): Inguinal hernia advances or controversies. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elliot MP, Juler GL. Comparison of Marlex mesh and microporous Teflon sheets when used for hernia repair in the experimental animal. Am J Surg. 1979; 137:342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simmermacher RKJ, Schakenraad JM, Bleichrodt RP. Reherniation after repair of the abdominal wall with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;178.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Sabater C, et al. Pathologic and clinical aspects of repair of large incisional hernias after implant of a polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis. World J Surg. 1997; 21:402–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van der Lei B, Bleichrodt RP, Simmermacher RKJ, et al. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch for the repair of large abdominal wall defects. Br J Surg. 1989; 76:803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    diZerega GS. Contemporary adhesion prevention. Fertil Steril. 1994; 61: 219–235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Narm IO, Pulley D, Scaulan K, et al. Reduction of postoperative adhesions to Marlex mesh using experimental adhesion barriers in rats. J Laparoendo Surg. 1993; 3:187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Simmermacher RKJ. Biomaterials in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Thesis, University of Groningen, 1994.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ong TH, Strong R, Zahan Z, et al. The management of difficult abdominal closure after pediatric liver transplantation. J Pediatr Surg. 1996; 31:295–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Porter JM. A combination of Vicryl and Marlex mesh: a technique for abdominal wall closure in difficult cases. J Trauma. 1995; 39:1178–1180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Loury JN. Traitement des éventrations. Utilisation simultanée du treillis de polyglactine 910 et de Dacron. Presse Med. 1983; 12:2116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dasika UK. Does lining polypropylene with polyglactin mesh reduce intraperitoneal adhesions? Am Surg. 1998; 64:817.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Becker JH, Dayton MT, Fazio VW, et al. Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg. 1996; 183:297–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fabian TC, Croce MA, Pritchard FE, et al. Planned ventral hernias of the abdominal wall: principles and management. Ann Surg. 1994;219: 643–653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Voyles CR, Richardson JD, Bland KJ, et al. Emergency abdominal wall reconstruction with polypropylene mesh: short term benefits versus long term complications. Ann Surg. 1981; 194:219–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 1.
    Bendavid R. Complications of groin hernia surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 1998; 78(6):1089–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 2.
    Bendavid R. Composite mesh in incisional hernias devoid of peritoneum. Hernia. 1997; 1(1):5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 3.
    Adloff M, Arnaud JR Surgical management of large incisional hernia by an intraperitoneal Mersilene mesh and an aponeurotic graft. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1987; 165:204–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 4.
    Cotton LT. Cannibalization of a Gore-Tex aorto-hepatic graft by the duodenum [letter]. Br J Surg. 1985; 6:499.Google Scholar
  51. 5.
    Danelli PC Le complicanze dei plugs: infezioni e récidive. Hernia (suppl 1). 1997; 5(10).Google Scholar
  52. 6.
    Dufilho A. Les complications des prothèses en tulle de Dacron: à propos de 414 observations. Thèse méd. Paris, 1981.Google Scholar
  53. 7.
    Fitzgibbons R Jr, Annibali R, Litke B. A multicentered clinical trial on laparoscopic inguinal repair: preliminary results. Presented at the 1993 Scientific Session and Post-Graduate Course, Phoenix, March–April 1993.Google Scholar
  54. 8.
    Francioni G. Prosthetics: their complication and management. In Bendavid R (ed): Prostheses and abdominal wall hernias. Austin: R.G. Landes Company; 1994:330–336.Google Scholar
  55. 9.
    Loh A, Leopold P, Taylor RS. Laparoscopic preperitoneal patch hernia repair: preliminary results in 100 patients. Presented at the First European Congress of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Cologne, Germany, June 1993.Google Scholar
  56. 10.
    MacFayden BV. Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy: complications and pitfalls. In Arregui ME, Nagan RF (eds): Inguinal hernia: advances or controversies? Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1994: 284–296.Google Scholar
  57. 11.
    Schneider R, Herrington JL, Granada AM. The mesh repair of a diaphragmatic defect later on in the distal esophagus and stomach. Am J Surg. 1979; 45:337–339.Google Scholar
  58. 12.
    Tetik C, Arregui ME, Castro D. Complications and recurrences associated with laparoscopic repair of groin hernias. A multi-institutional retrospective analysis. In Arregui ME, Nagan RF (eds): Inguinal hernia: advances or controversies? Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1994:494–500.Google Scholar
  59. 13.
    Thompson JS, William SM. Fistula following continent ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994; 27:193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 14.
    Wantz GE. Complications of synthetic prostheses in hernia surgery. Probl Gen Surg. 1995; 12:79–83.Google Scholar
  61. 15.
    Becker JM, Dayton MT, Fazio FW. Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surgeons. 1996; 183(4):297–306.Google Scholar
  62. 16.
    Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions: how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990; 72:60–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 17.
    Luijendijk RW, de Lang DCD, Wauters CCAP. Foreign materials in post-operative adhesions. Ann Surg. 1996; 223:242–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 18.
    Weibel MA, Manjo G. Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery. Am J Surg. 1973; 126:345–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 19.
    Francois Y, Dozois RR, Kelley KA. Small intestinal obstruction complication ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Ann Surg. 1989; 209:46–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 20.
    Ellis H. The course and prevention of post operative intraabdominal adhesions. Surg Gyncol Obstet. 1971; 133:497–511.Google Scholar
  67. 21.
    Belzer FO. The role of venous obstruction in the formation of intraabdominal adhesions: an experimental study. Br J Surg. 1967; 54: 189–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 22.
    Renvall S, Lehto M, Pentinen R. Development of peritoneal fibrosis under the mesothelial cell layer. J Surg Res. 1987; 43:407–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 23.
    Law NH, Ellis H. Adhesion formation and peritoneal healing on prosthetic materials. Clin Mater. 1988; 3:95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 24.
    Buckman RF, Buckman PD, Hudnagel HV. A physiologic basis for the adhesion free healing of deperitonealized surfaces. J Surg. 1976; 21: 67–76.Google Scholar
  71. 25.
    Raferty AT. Regeneration of peritoneum: a fibrinolytic study. J Anat. 1979; 129:659–664.Google Scholar
  72. 26.
    Commentaries on ePTFE. In Bendavid R (ed): Prostheses and abdominal wall hernias. Austin: R.G. Landes Company; 1994:290.Google Scholar
  73. 27.
    Amid P. Experimental evaluation of a new composite mesh with the selective property of incorporation to the abdominal wall without adhering to the intestines. J Biomed Mater Res. 1994; 28:373–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 28.
    Diamond MP, Hershlag A. Adhesion formation and reformation. In di Zerega GS, Malinak LR, Diamond MP, et al. (eds): Treatment of postsurgical adhesions. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1990:22–33.Google Scholar
  75. 29.
    Maingot R. Abdominal operations, 6th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1974:1892.Google Scholar
  76. 30.
    Annibali R, Fitzgibbons R Jr. Prosthetic materials and adhesion formation. In Arregui ME, Nagan RF (eds): Inguinal hernia: advances or controversies? Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1994:115–124.Google Scholar
  77. 31.
    Larsson B, Nisell H, Granberg I. Surgicel—an absorbable hemostatic material in prevention of peritoneal adhesions in rats. Acta Chir Scand. 1978; 144:375–378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 32.
    Rafferty A. Absorbable hemostatic materials and intra-peritoneal adhesion formation. Br J Surg. 1980; 656:57.Google Scholar
  79. 33.
    Hixson C, Swanson LA, Friedman CI. Oxidized cellulose for preventing adrenal adhesions. J Reprod Med. 1986; 28:662.Google Scholar
  80. 34.
    Hanney AF, Doty E. Murine peritoneal injury and de novo adhesion formation caused by oxidized regenerated cellulose (Interceed TC7) but not ePTFE (Gore-Tex surgical membrane). Fertil Steril. 1992; 57: 202–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. K. J. Simmermacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity HospitalUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations