Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A retrospective review and observations over a 16-year clinical experience on the surgical treatment of chronic mesh infection. What about replacing a synthetic mesh on the infected surgical field?

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

Abstract

Purpose

To review the short- and long-term results in patients who underwent removal of infected or exposed mesh and reconstruction of the abdominal wall with simultaneous mesh replacement.

Methods

Patients undergoing removal of an infected or exposed mesh and single-staged reconstruction of the abdominal wall with synthetic mesh replacement over a 16-year period were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were operated and followed by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included wound complications and hernia recurrence.

Results

From 1996 until 2012, 41 patients (23 F, 18 M), with a mean age of 53.4 years and mean BMI of 31.2 ± 8 kg/m2, were treated for chronic mesh infection (CMI). A suppurative infection was present in 27 patients, and 14 had an exposed mesh. The need for recurrent incisional hernia repair was observed in 25 patients; bowel resections or other potentially contaminated procedures were associated in 15 patients. The short-term results showed an uneventful post-operative course after mesh replacement in 27 patients; 6 (14.6 %) patients developed a minor wound infection and were treated with dressings and antibiotics; 5 (12 %) patients had wound infections requiring debridement and one required complete mesh removal. On the long-term follow-up, there were three hernia recurrences, one of which demanded a reoperation for enterocutaneous fistula; 95 % of the patients submitted to mesh replacement were considered cured of CMI after a mean follow-up of 74 months.

Conclusions

CMI can be treated by removal of infected mesh; simultaneous mesh replacement prevents hernia recurrence and has an acceptable incidence of post-operative acute infection. Standard polypropylene mesh is a suitable material to be used in the infected surgical field as an onlay graft.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–585

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Deysine M, Soroff HS (1990) Must we specialize herniorrhaphy for better results? Am J Surg 160:239–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, Hakakha M (1994) Biomaterials for abdominal wall hernia surgery and principles of their applications. Langenbecks Arch Chir 379:168–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amid P (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall surgery. Hernia 1:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Seker D, Kulacoglu H (2011) Long-term complications of mesh repair for abdominal wall hernias. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 21:205–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi JJ, Palaniappa NC, Dallas KB, Rudich TB, Colon MJ, Divino CM (2012) Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases. Ann Surg 255:176–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tolino MJ, Tripoloni DE, Ratto R, Garcia MI (2009) Infections associated with prosthetic repairs of abdominal wall hernias: pathology, management and results. Hernia 13:631–637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sabbagh C, Verhaeghe P, Brehant O, Browet F, Garriot B, Regimbeau JM (2012) Partial removal of infected parietal meshes is a safe procedure. Hernia 16:445–449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dayton MT, Buchele BA, Shirazi SS, Hunt LB (1986) Use of an absorbable mesh to repair contaminated abdominal wall defects. Arch Surg 121:954–960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Szczerba SR, Dumanian GA (2003) Definitive surgical treatment of infected or exposed ventral hernia mesh. Ann Surg 237:437–441

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Geffen HJ, Simmermacher RK, van Vroonhoven TJ, van der Werken C (2005) Surgical treatment of large contaminated abdominal wall defects. J Am Coll Surg 201:206–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosen MJ, Jin J, McGee MF, Williams C, Marks J, Ponsky JL (2007) Laparoscopic component separation in the single-stage treatment of infected abdominal wall prosthetic removal. Hernia 11:435–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson EK, Tushoski PL (2010) Abdominal wall reconstruction in patients with digestive tract fistulas. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 23:195–208

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Miserez M, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Schumpelick V (2013) Hernia surgery and contamination: biological mesh and nothing else? Hernia 17:1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto G III, Butler CE, RICH Study Group (2012) Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: the RICH Study. Surgery 152:498–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosen MJ, DeNoto G, Itani KMF, Butler C, vargo D, Smiell J, Rutan R (2013) Evaluation of surgical outcomes of retro-rectus versus intraperitoneal reinforcement with bio-prosthetic mesh in the repair of contaminated ventral hernias. Hernia 17:31–35

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA (2013) A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 257:991–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 11:435–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Meagher H, Clarke Moloney M, Grace PA (2013) Conservative management of mesh-site infection in hernia repair surgery: a case series. Hernia. doi:10.1007/s10029-013-1069-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berrevoet F, Vanlander A, Sainz-Barriga M, Rogiers X, Troisi R (2013) Infected large pore meshes may be salvaged by topical negative pressure therapy. Hernia 17:67–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Jacobs MR, Gao Y, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2012) In vivo analysis of the morphologic characteristics of synthetic mesh to resist MRSA adherence. J Gastrointest Surg 16:2139–2144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hicks CW, Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2013) History of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) surgical site infection may not be a contraindication to ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh: a preliminary report. Hernia. doi:10.1007/s10029-012-1035-x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

CB declares no conflict of interests.

JSM declares no conflict of interests.

EMU declares no conflict of interests.

SR declares no conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    C. Birolini, J. S. de Miranda, E. M. Utiyama & S. Rasslan

  2. Rua Barata Ribeiro, 284 Apt. 34, São Paulo, 01308-000, Brazil

    C. Birolini

Authors
  1. C. Birolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. S. de Miranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. M. Utiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Rasslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Birolini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birolini, C., de Miranda, J.S., Utiyama, E.M. et al. A retrospective review and observations over a 16-year clinical experience on the surgical treatment of chronic mesh infection. What about replacing a synthetic mesh on the infected surgical field?. Hernia 19, 239–246 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1225-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1225-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation