Friday, July 01, 2011

Mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery

Mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery
M. E. Falagas1,2, S. K. Kasiakou1Article first published online: 29 NOV 2004

DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01014.x
Keywords:Hernia repair;infectious complications;mesh-related infection;Staphylococcus aureus;Staphylococcus spp
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Abstract
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
Clinicians have been challenged in the past few years by an increasing variety of novel non-infectious and infectious complications following the widespread use of meshes after open or laparoscopic repair of hernias. The possibility of a mesh-related infection occurring weeks or even years after hernia repair, should be considered in any patient with fever of unknown origin, or symptoms and/or signs of inflammation of the abdominal wall following hernia repair. The reported incidence of mesh-related infection following hernia repair has been 1%–8% in different series, and this incidence is influenced by underlying co-morbidities, the type of mesh, the surgical technique and the strategy used to prevent infections. An approach that combines medical and surgical management is necessary for cases of mesh infection. The antimicrobial treatment regimen chosen initially should include coverage of Staphylococcus spp. and, particularly, Staphylococcus aureus.

Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Introduction
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
Within the last few years, the use of meshes has become standard procedure in hernia repair surgery throughout the world. Implantation of a mesh during the surgical management of this common problem has been found to reduce the rate of recurrence of a hernia. For example, use of a mesh for the repair of incisional hernias has been found in different studies to decrease the recurrence rates by an average of 30%[1–3], while in a randomised clinical trial involving 289 patients in which non-mesh vs. mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia was compared, it was found that recurrence rates were 7% for the non-mesh technique vs. 1% for mesh repair [4]. However, mesh-related complications have become increasingly important. Such complications include seromas, adhesions, chronic severe pain, migration and rejection of the mesh, and mesh-related infections.

The present review focuses on mesh-related infections. Data for the review were obtained from searches of Medline, Current Contents and references from relevant articles. In addition, several articles were identified through searches of the extensive files of the authors. The search terms were ‘mesh’, ‘infection’, ‘open hernia surgery’, ‘laparoscopic hernia repair’, ‘inguinal hernia repair’, ‘infectious complications’, ‘biomaterials’, ‘antibiotic prophylaxis’ and ‘prevention’. All English language papers were carefully reviewed.
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
Important advances in research and development by the biomedical materials industry have led to the production of relatively inert and biocompatible surgical meshes. However, it has been noted in clinical practice that surgical meshes can trigger various responses when implanted in the human body, including inflammation (known as foreign body reaction), fibrosis, calcification, thrombosis and infection.

Foreign body reaction refers to a process in which proteins such as albumin and fibrinogen are absorbed initially by the surface of the polymer. Subsequently, the physiochemical properties of each polymer result in the degradation of the absorbed proteins. This process results in the attraction and stimulation of macrophages, which respond by releasing inflammatory substances and growth factors. Other inflammatory cells (T-lymphocytes, polymorphonuclear cells, eosinophils, plasma cells and fibroblasts) are then attracted to the surface of the polymer, leading to the formation of a granuloma. Such granulomas are characterised by locally increased cell turnover, which may continue for periods of several years after the implantation of the mesh. Foreign body reaction also depends on the surface area of the mesh that is in contact with the host tissue [5]. Clinical manifestations of foreign body reaction are seroma, rejection, migration of mesh, adhesions and pain.

Meshes made of non-absorbable polymers have been used most frequently in clinical practice. The main non-absorbable polymers are polyester, polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. However, given the fact that absorbable polymers are associated less frequently with foreign body reactions and adhesion, newer meshes are made of a combination of absorbable and non-absorbable polymers [6,7]. The mechanical and biological properties of meshes are associated with the type of tissue structure (woven or knitted) and the type of fibre used (mono- or multifilament) [8]. The pore size of the mesh also plays a role in the safety and tolerability of surgical meshes [9].
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Mesh-related infectious complications
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Incidence
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
Mesh-related infections following surgery occur relatively infrequently compared with other device-related infections. However, they are of considerable clinical importance, not only for the patients and surgeons, but also for other medical specialists. The question of whether the incidence of infectious complications is higher after hernia repair involving the use of a mesh, in comparison with older techniques not involving use of a mesh, remains controversial. The results of a recent trial in which a comparison was made between umbilical hernia repair with or without a mesh in 200 adults showed that the rate of post-operative complications, including infection, was similar following both procedures [10]. A similar result was obtained in a meta-analysis of 20 trials (5016 participants) of open mesh vs. non-mesh repair of groin hernias [11]. In contrast, the results of a randomised trial of 160 patients with simple or complex hernias who underwent suture repair, skin graft or mesh repair showed that the rate of infectious complications was lower following suture repair than following the other two techniques. In addition, mesh implantation led to an increased rate of infections following repair of both simple and complex hernias [12]. A further study showed that the use of mesh during the repair of a ventral hernia or a hernia defect > 10 cm in size was associated significantly with an increased number of wound complications [13].

Incidences of mesh-related infection after hernia repair of up to 8% have been reported (Table 1) [14–18]. The rate of infection is influenced considerably by underlying co-morbidity, and seems to be increased in patients with diabetes, immunosuppression or obesity. Of great interest is whether the type of prosthetic material or the precise technique used for hernia repair can influence the incidence of mesh infection. In most recent published trials, the differences in complication rates following different surgical approaches and the use of different meshes have been compared. However, none of these studies focused specifically on the mesh-related infection rates. Leber et al.[19] conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 200 patients who underwent open repair of abdominal incisional hernias with prosthetic material, with the aim of determining whether the incidence of long-term complications was influenced by the surgical technique. The authors concluded that the precise surgical approach did not influence the incidence of long-term complications significantly, including mesh infection. Although several authors have suggested that the laparoscopic approach to hernia repair has fewer post-operative complications compared to open repair, there are no clear, specific data regarding mesh-related infection rates [20–22].

Table 1. Incidence of mesh infection after laparoscopic or open hernia repair surgery Reference Study population (n) Technique of hernia repair Incidence of mesh infection
Heniford et al.[14] 407 Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair 0.98%
Heniford et al.[15] 822 Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair 0.7%
Kirshtein et al.[16] 103 Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair 2%
Petersen et al.[17] 121 Open incisional hernia repair 7%
Cobb et al.[18] 95 Open incisional hernia repair 8%

There is no consensus in the literature as to whether the use of non-absorbable mesh for incisional hernia repair is contraindicated in potentially contaminated surgical settings. Recently published data have indicated that the rate of mesh-related infections is comparable for ‘clean’ surgical procedures and for cases where potentially contaminated surgical procedures, such as appendectomy, cholocystectomy or enterectomy, are performed at the same time as incisional hernia repair [23,24].

The influence of mesh type on the incidence of infection was investigated in a recent study; the results showed that the use of multifilament polyester mesh resulted in a higher incidence of infection, small bowel obstruction and enterocutaneous fistula formation than the use of other types of mesh (knitted monofilament polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene or woven polypropylene) [19]. In addition, studies in experimental animals have shown that microporous mesh is associated with higher rates of infection and/or development of seromas, whereas macroporous mesh is associated with a higher incidence of adhesive and erosive events. Microporous mesh has a pore diameter of 10 µm, with the result that bacteria can penetrate the mesh, but polymorphonuclear leukocytes (with a diameter of 75 µm) cannot. This means that the bacteria in the mesh are protected from immunological defence mechanisms [25–27].
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Clinical symptoms and signs
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
The reported interval between hernia repair and the manifestation of a mesh infection ranges from 2 weeks to 39 months [28]. Patients usually present with symptoms and signs of local acute inflammation (a combination of pain, erythema, tenderness, swelling and increased temperature in the abdominal wall in the area of the mesh). In addition, patients may have systemic manifestations such as fever, malaise, chills or rigors. A mesh-related infection can sometimes manifest with a discharging fistula, or with an intra-abdominal abscess. Rare cases of patients who presented with osteomyelitis following inguinal hernia surgery with implantation of a polypropylene mesh have been reported [29].
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Microbiology
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
The usual causative organisms associated with cases of mesh infection are Staphylococcus spp., especially Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp. (including group B streptococci), Gram-negative bacteria (mainly Enterobacteriaceae), and anaerobic bacteria (including Peptostreptococcus spp.) [28]. In a study of mesh-related infections following incisional herniorrhaphy, 63% of the microorganisms isolated were methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) [18]. Rarely, mesh infections are caused by Candida spp. or Mycobacterium spp. [30,31].

Mesh infections can manifest with chronic, persistent or recurrent symptoms and signs. The infecting agents in some of these reported cases were small-colony variants, usually of S. aureus. The main characteristic of these infections is that they respond poorly to antimicrobial treatment regimens [32].
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Prevention
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
The most important point regarding the prevention of mesh-related infections is that foreign body reactions depend on the amount of the prosthesis (mesh) used. For this reason, surgeons should try to minimise the area of mesh that is introduced during the hernia operation, since the inserted foreign material is an ideal medium for bacterial colonisation [33].

In addition, four main approaches to the prevention of mesh infection have been used. First, the wound can be rinsed with an antibiotic-containing solution, starting immediately after the dissection of the hernia sac, and then intermittently until the skin is sutured. It has been shown in an animal model that this approach inhibits the adhesion of bacteria to the surface of the mesh, as well as their growth [34]. Moreover, in a randomised trial of 162 patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair, there were no wound infections following the application of a single dose of cefamandole directly to the wound [35]. However, the effectiveness of lavage with solutions containing antimicrobial agents is controversial, since antibiotics require a defined duration of contact with pathogens, while lavage is usually a more rapid process.

A second approach involves the use of material placed in front of the mesh to slowly deliver an antimicrobial agent locally. In a randomised trial, the use of gentamicin-laced collagen tampons was tested in 301 patients undergoing prosthetic groin hernia repair. The collagen tampons were placed in front of the mesh before the aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle was sutured. This new technique resulted in fewer post-operative infections in comparison with 294 patients undergoing surgical repair for the same hernia without the use of gentamicin-containing collagen tampons [36].

Third, a mesh containing embedded antimicrobial agents can be used. Such a mesh is thought to help prevent bacterial adhesion and colonisation when implanted in wounds, with a subsequent reduced likelihood of post-operative infections.

Finally, traditional intravenous perioperative administration of antimicrobial agents can be used. Although hernia repair operations are classified as clean surgery, the administration of intravenous antibiotics perioperatively has been shown to be beneficial if a prosthetic material (mesh) is involved [37,38].

All of the above-mentioned strategies seem to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of mesh-related infection after hernia repair. However, no definitive recommendation can be made in favour of any particular approach in the absence of comparative outcome data. The current standard preventive strategy for other types of surgery, i.e., the perioperative administration of appropriate intravenous antibiotics, may be used until new data regarding alternative preventive strategies become available. At the present time, additional strategies to prevent mesh-related infections, such as the use of gentamicin-laced collagen tampons with a mesh, are best reserved for patients at high risk of infection, such as diabetic and obese patients.
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Diagnosis and treatment
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
A clinician should strongly consider the possibility of a mesh-related infection in any patient who presents with fever of unknown aetiology, symptoms and/or signs of inflammation of the abdominal wall in the area of the mesh, or other less common clinical manifestations of mesh infection, such as an enterocutaneous fistula or abdominal abscess in the area of the mesh.

Imaging techniques, including ultrasound and/or computerised tomography, can be useful for the diagnosis of mesh infection. Such techniques usually reveal an area of inflammation in the subcutaneous fat around the mesh, which has different echogenic or density characteristics, respectively, from that in other conditions, such as seroma. Additionally, the results of these imaging tests can indicate the presence of a fistula or an abscess.

It is important that no attempt should be made to perform a diagnostic paracentesis of mesh-related seromas when there are no symptoms and/or signs of inflammation of the abdominal wall. This is because of the real possibility of introduction of bacteria into the area of seroma during paracentesis, leading to the transformation of an aseptic reaction into an infectious process.

When a mesh-related infection occurs, a combined medical and surgical approach involving intravenous antimicrobial agents and complete surgical removal of the mesh is the preferred management strategy. For a variety of reasons, monotherapy with intravenous antibiotics generally has a poor outcome. The most important of these reasons relates to the fibroblastic response of the organism to the polymer of the implanted mesh, which results in the development of a thick fibrous capsule surrounding the mesh. Consequently, when an infection is established, this capsule restricts the penetration of antimicrobial agents into the infected mesh. In addition, it is well known that Staphylococcus spp., which are the most common causative organisms in mesh infections, produce a biofilm on the prosthesis, with the result that the microorganisms are protected simultaneously from antibiotics and the immune responses of the host organism [39].

Incomplete removal of the mesh should be suspected in any case with persistent or recurrent symptoms and/or signs of mesh infection. However, the results of a recent study suggested that the management of infected mesh might differ according to the type of mesh used. Specifically, it was suggested that infection of polyester or polypropylene mesh might be managed with drainage and antimicrobial agents only, whereas the infected mesh should be surgically removed in cases of infection involving expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh [17].
Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
Conclusions
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
Clinicians should promptly consider the possibility of mesh infection in any patient who has undergone hernia repair surgery involving a mesh, and who has fever of unknown aetiology or symptoms and/or signs of infection of the abdominal wall. There is no adequate evidence in the literature concerning the specific risk factors for such infections. Whether the surgical technique used for the repair of a hernia or the precise type of implanted mesh influences the rate of development of a mesh-related infection remains to be clarified.

As yet, there are no published reports of comparative trials of different antimicrobial regimens for the management of mesh-related infections. Consequently, no definitive recommendations can be made concerning the preferred medical management strategy. However, given the known facts regarding the microbial aetiology of mesh-related infections, and the pathogenesis and characteristics of infections involving other types of prosthetic material, antimicrobial agents used for the treatment of mesh-related infection should at least include coverage for Staphylococcus spp.

Jump to…Top of pageAbstractIntroductionMesh-related non-infectious complicationsMesh-related infectious complicationsIncidenceClinical symptoms and signsMicrobiologyPreventionDiagnosis and treatmentConclusionsReferences
References
Top of page
Abstract
Introduction
Mesh-related non-infectious complications
Mesh-related infectious complications
Incidence
Clinical symptoms and signs
Microbiology
Prevention
Diagnosis and treatment
Conclusions
References
1Hesselink VJ, Luijendijk RW, De Wilt JH, Heide R, Jeekel J. An evaluation of risk factors in incisional hernia recurrence. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993; 176: 228–234.PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 1942Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Van Den Tol MP et al. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 392–398.DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200008103430603CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 3213Schumpelick V, Conze J, Klinge U. Preperitoneal mesh-plasty in incisional hernia repair. A comparative retrospective study of 272 operated incisional hernias. Der Chirurg 1996; 67: 1028–1035.DOI: 10.1007/s001040050099CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 814Vrijland WW, Van Den Tol MP, Luijendijk RW et al. Randomized clinical trial of non-mesh versus mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 293–297.DOI: 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.02030.xDirect Link:AbstractPDF(77K)References5Klosterhalfen B, Hermanns B, Rosch R, Junge K. Biological response to mesh. Eur Surg 2003; 35: 16–20.DOI: 10.1046/j.1563-2563.2003.03011.xDirect Link:AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(617K)References6Jenkins SD, Klamer TW, Parteka JJ, Condon RE. A comparison of prosthetic materials used to repair abdominal wall defects. Surgery 1983; 94: 392–398.PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 1377Butler CE, Navarro FA, Orgill DP. Reduction of abdominal adhesions using composite collagen–GAG implants for ventral hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 58: 75–80.Direct Link:AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(376K)References8Debodinance P, Delporte P, Engrand JB, Boulogne M. Development of better tolerated prosthetic materials: applications in gynecological surgery. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2002; 31: 527–540.PubMed,ChemPort9Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 2002; 103: 208–214.DOI: 10.1006/jsre.2002.6358CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 6410Arroyo A, Garcia P, Perez F, Andreu J, Candela F, Calpena R. Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1321–1323.DOI: 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01893.xDirect Link:AbstractPDF(57K)References11Grant AM. Open mesh versus non-mesh repair of groin hernia: meta-analysis of randomised trials based on individual patient data [corrected]. Hernia 2002; 6: 130–136.DOI: 10.1007/s10029-002-0073-1CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort12Korenkov M, Sauerland S, Arndt M, Bograd L, Neugebauer EA, Troidl H. Randomized clinical trial of suture repair, polypropylene mesh or autodermal hernioplasty for incisional hernia. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 50–56.DOI: 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01974.xDirect Link:AbstractPDF(87K)References13White TJ, Santos MC, Thompson JS. Factors affecting wound complications in repair of ventral hernias. Am Surg 1998; 64: 276–280.PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 7614Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G. Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair in 407 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190: 645–650.DOI: 10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00280-5CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 15015Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G. Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years' experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 2003; 238: 391–399.PubMed,Web of Science® Times Cited: 18516Kirshtein B, Lantsberg L, Avinoach E, Bayme M, Mizrahi S. Laparoscopic repair of large incisional hernias. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 1717–1719.DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-9200-9CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 2417Petersen S, Henke G, Freitag M, Faulhaber A, Ludwig K. Deep prosthesis infection in incisional hernia repair: predictive factors and clinical outcome. Eur J Surg 2001; 167: 453–457.DOI: 10.1080/110241501750243815Direct Link:AbstractPDF(66K)18Cobb WS, Harris JB, Lokey JS, McGill ES, Klove KL. Incisional herniorrhaphy with intraperitoneal composite mesh: a report of 95 cases. Am Surg 2003; 69: 784–787.PubMed,Web of Science® Times Cited: 3219Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 378–382.DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.133.4.378CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 27620McGreevy JM, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer CM, Finlayson SR, Laycock WS, Birkmeyer JD. A prospective study comparing the complication rates between laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 1778–1780.DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8851-5CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 4921Carbajo MA, Martin del Olmo JC, Blanco JI et al. Laparoscopic treatment vs open surgery in the solution of major incisional and abdominal wall hernias with mesh. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 250–252.CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 13222Chari R, Chari V, Eisenstat M, Chung R. A case controlled study of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 117–119.PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 4323Geisler DJ, Reilly JC, Vaughan SG, Glennon EJ, Kondylis PD. Safety and outcome of use of nonabsorbable mesh for repair of fascial defects in the presence of open bowel. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 1118–1123.CrossRef,PubMed,Web of Science® Times Cited: 2124Birolini C, Utiyama EM, Rodrigues AJ, Birolini D. Elective colonic operation and prosthetic repair of incisional hernia: does contamination contraindicate abdominal wall prosthesis use? J Am Coll Surg 2000; 191: 366–372.CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 2425Amid PK. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1997; 1: 15–21. CrossRef26Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A, Jurado F. Macrophage response to experimental implantation of polypropylene prostheses. Eur Surg Res 1994; 26: 46–53.CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 3727Walker AP, Henderson J, Condon RE. Double-layer prostheses for repair of abdominal wall defects in a rabbit model. J Surg Res 1993; 55: 32–37.DOI: 10.1006/jsre.1993.1104CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 2828Taylor SG, O'Dwyer PJ. Chronic groin sepsis following tension-free inguinal hernioplasty. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 562–565.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01072.xDirect Link:AbstractPDF(53K)References29Due SS, Billesbolle P, Hansen MB. Osteomyelitis. A rare and serious complication of inguinal hernia surgery. Ugeskr Laeger 2001; 163: 3230–3231.PubMed,ChemPort30Nolla-Salas J, Torres-Rodriguez JM, Grau S et al. Successful treatment with liposomal amphotericin B of an intraabdominal abscess due to Candida norvegensis associated with a Gore-Tex mesh infection. Scand J Infect Dis 2000; 32: 560–562.DOI: 10.1080/003655400458893CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 231Matthews MR, Caruso DM, Tsujimura RB, Smilack JD, Pockaj BA, Malone JM. Ventral hernia synthetic mesh repair infected by Mycobacterium fortuitum. Am Surg 1999; 65: 1035–1037.PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 1232Goring H, Waldner H, Emmerling P, Abele-Horn M. Chronic fistulating wound infection after Lichtenstein repair of inguinal hernia, caused by a small colony variant of Staphylococcus aureus. Der Chirurg 2001; 72: 441–443.DOI: 10.1007/s001040051328CrossRef,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 533Deysine M. Pathophysiology, prevention, and management of prosthetic infections in hernia surgery. Surg Clin North Am 1998; 78: 1105–1115.CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 2534Troy MG, Dong QS, Dobrin PB, Hecht D. Do topical antibiotics provide improved prophylaxis against bacterial growth in the presence of polypropylene mesh? Am J Surg 1996; 171: 391–393.DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(97)89616-XCrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 1835Lazorthes F, Chiotasso P, Massip P, Materre JP, Sarkissian M. Local antibiotic prophylaxis in inguinal hernia repair. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 175: 569–570.PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 3636Musella M, Guido A, Musella S. Collagen tampons as aminoglycoside carriers to reduce postoperative infection rate in prosthetic repair of groin hernias. Eur J Surg 2001; 167: 130–132.DOI: 10.1080/110241501750070592Direct Link:AbstractPDF(139K)37Yerdel MA, Akin EB, Dolalan S et al. Effect of single-dose prophylactic ampicillin and sulbactam on wound infection after tension-free inguinal hernia repair with polypropylene mesh: the randomized, double-blind, prospective trial. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 26–33.DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200101000-00005CrossRef,PubMed,ChemPort,Web of Science® Times Cited: 5238Celdran A, Frieyro O, De La Pinta JC et al. The role of antibiotic prophylaxis on wound infection after mesh hernia repair under local anesthesia on an ambulatory basis. Hernia 2004; 8: 20–22.DOI: 10.1007/s10029-003-0164-7CrossRef,PubMed39Buret A, Ward KH, Olson ME, Costerton JW. An in vivo model to study the pathobiology of infectious biofilms on biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1991; 25: 865–874.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01014.x/full

1 comment:

Abhijith Ds said...

Are there two types of hernia mesh available? Absorbable or non-absorbable mesh?