Mesh Repair Umbilical Hernia Surgery Incision Busting Open Again
Plast Surg (Oakv). 2016 Bound; 24(i): 41–fifty.
Linguistic communication: English language | French
Surgical mesh for ventral incisional hernia repairs: Understanding mesh design
Ali Rastegarpour
1Partition of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Section of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center;
Michael Cheung
1Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Centre;
Madhurima Vardhan
2Section of Biomedical Engineering, Knuckles University, Pratt School of Applied science, Durham, North Carolina;
Mohamed M Ibrahim
aneSegmentation of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Knuckles University Medical Center;
Charles E Butler
3Department of Plastic Surgery, The Academy of Texas Doc Anderson Cancer Eye, Houston, Texas, U.s.
Howard Levinson
1Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Knuckles University Medical Center;
Abstract
Surgical mesh has get an indispensable tool in hernia repair to improve outcomes and reduce costs; however, efforts are constantly being undertaken in mesh development to overcome postoperative complications. Common complications include infection, pain, adhesions, mesh extrusion and hernia recurrence. Reducing the complications of mesh implantation is of utmost importance given that hernias occur in hundreds of thousands of patients per year in the United States. In the nowadays review, the authors nowadays the different types of hernia meshes, discuss the cardinal properties of mesh design, and demonstrate how each design element affects performance and complications. The present article will provide a basis for surgeons to empathize which mesh to choose for patient care and why, and will explain the of import technological aspects that will go on to evolve over the ensuing years.
Keywords: Hernia, Surgical mesh, Tissue engineering, Ventral
Résumé
Le treillis chirurgical est devenu indispensable cascade réparer les hernies, automobile il améliore les résultats et réduit les coûts. Cependant, les treillis sont en abiding développement afin de vaincre les complications postopératoires. Parmi les complications courantes, soulignons l'infection, la douleur, les adhérences, l'extrusion du treillis et la récurrence des hernies. Il est essentiel de réduire les complications liées à fifty'implantation des treillis, motorcar des centaines de milliers de patients souffrent de hernies chaque année aux États-Unis. Dans la présente analyse, les auteurs présentent les divers types de treillis pour hernie, en exposent les principales propriétés et démontrent l'effet de chaque élément de conception sur le rendement et les complications. Le présent commodity aidera les chirurgiens à choisir le treillis pour leurs patients et exposera les aspects technologiques importants qui continueront d'évoluer au cours des prochaines années.
Incisional hernia is the most common complication of laparotomy that requires reoperation. Recent figures cite an overall incidence of nearly x% (1). Because that 2 million laparotomies are performed annually in the United States (2), there volition be an estimated 200,000 patients requiring incisional hernia repair each yr (three). For stoma site hernias, the incidence of hernia formation may exist as high equally 30% and, when surgical site infections occur, the incidence is believed to double (4,5). The costs of incisional hernia repair surgeries are staggering. Poulose et al (6) calculated an average cost of USD$xv,899 for each in-patient operation in the United States in 2006, which amounts to an estimated $iii.2 billion per year. Bower and Roth(7) were quick to point out that this is likely an underestimation of total costs, because the study by Poulose et al (half-dozen) did not business relationship for md fees and societal costs, such as absence from work, and excluded Veterans Affairs (VA) organisation costs.
Nonincisional hernias share many aspects of their pathophysiology and management with incisional hernias. Collectively, the repair of nonincisional intestinal wall hernias form the most mutual group of major operations performed by full general surgeons, with more than than ane 1000000 procedures annually in the United States (8). These hernias demonstrate a prevalence of 1.7% in the general population, rising up to iv% in individuals >45 years of age. Inguinal hernia, which accounts for 75% of these occurrences, holds a lifetime risk of 27% in men (9).
Prosthetic meshes are widely applied to reduce hernia recurrence rates. The x-year incisional hernia recurrence charge per unit is reported to be 63% for traditional suture repair without mesh and 32% for repairs using prosthetic mesh (ten). While meshes are obviously beneficial, they remain associated with several serious complications including hernia recurrence, infection (11), chronic pain (12) and adhesions (13). As such, many hurdles remain to exist overcome with new hernia mesh designs. The nowadays article reviews the dissimilar classes of hernia meshes and principles of tissue engineering as applied to mesh development, and explains how current complications associated with surgical mesh are existence addressed with different mesh designs.
VENTRAL INCISIONAL HERNIA
During closure of a laparotomy, the linea alba is reapproximated and the rectus muscles are returned to midline. The integrity of the repair is dependent on suture fixation until the load-bearing properties of the scar become equal to or surpass that of the suture. The fundamental pathophysiology of ventral incisional hernia is lateral migration of the rectus musculus with loss of office commonly referred to as 'loss of domain' (xiv). Mesh has become standard for repair of incisional hernias because it mitigates loss of domain and helps maintain the rectus muscles in the midline where they role best. The impact of mesh was clearly demonstrated in a multicentre randomized study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (fifteen). Luijendijk et al (15) reported that patients undergoing standard suture repair experienced a recurrence charge per unit of virtually double that of patients with mesh repair. Similarly, in a recent meta-analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Clan, Surgery, patients undergoing suture repair experienced a near threefold increase in hernia recurrence rates when compared with patients who underwent mesh repair (16). Equally such, the current recommendations set forth by the Ventral Hernia Working Group include the employ of mesh to reinforce all ventral hernia repairs (17). Farther recommendations include centralization and reapproximation of the paired rectus muscles. In selected instances, when the rectus muscles are splayed apart and cannot easily come together in the midline, a components separation may be helpful. Components separation is the partial release of the intestinal wall fascia that connects the oblique muscles with the rectus muscles (xviii). In patients in whom the rectus muscles all the same cannot exist brought to the midline, a bridged mesh repair is required. Bridged mesh repairs have demonstrated higher recurrence and complexity rates compared with nonbridged repairs and, are therefore, suboptimal, particularly with biologic mesh (19,20). Outcomes are significantly improved with a mesh reinforced repair, in which the fascial edges are closed completely over the mesh.
The intestinal wall is exposed to multiple forces that contribute to hernia formation (Figure i). These forces effect from contraction of the internal oblique, external oblique and transverse abdominis muscle groups, as well equally increased intra-abdominal pressure level. The rectus muscles are the merely muscle group of the anterior abdominal wall that contracts in a cephalad-caudal direction, which probably does non contribute to hernia recurrence.
Vectors of force in the intestinal wall. Contraction of the rectus muscles ( A ) does not promote hernia germination. Contraction of the external oblique muscles ( B ), internal oblique muscles ( C ), and transversus abdominis muscles ( D ) pull the rectus muscles apart and promote hernia formation. A cross exclusive view ( E ) demonstrates the forces acting on the linea alba in response to increased intra-abdominal pressure level (eg, coughing). Forces in the transverse direction are reportedly twice equally much as the forces in the longitudinal direction ( F ) (134)
CLASSES OF MESH
For the purpose of simplification and uniformity in the present review, all materials used to support hernia repairs are referred to every bit 'mesh'. Meshes tin can be divided into 2 broad classes: synthetic and biologic. Synthetic meshes are either nondegradable or degradable, while biologic meshes are all degradable. For the purposes of the present review, the term 'degradable' is used for meshes that, at least in office, deliquesce or remodel over time and are replaced by either scar tissue or regenerative matrix. The unlike classes of surgical mesh along with their relative advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Classes of mesh with their relative advantages and disadvantages
| Form of mesh | Reward(s) | Disadvantage(south) |
|---|---|---|
| Synthetic | ||
| Non-degradable | Inexpensive | Not recommended for infected fields |
| Low recurrence rates | Higher rates of infection, discomfort, and adhesions | |
| Degradable | Better side-effect profile than not-degradables | High recurrence rates for older meshes |
| Lower toll than biologicals | Insufficient evidence for newer meshes | |
| Biological | ||
| Degradable | Can be used in complex/infected fields | High recurrence rates |
| Expensive |
The synthetic nondegradable meshes, sometimes referred to equally 'classical' or 'traditional' meshes, are generally the least expensive. The earlier materials used for these meshes – perlon and nylon – were later abandoned considering perlon caused intense inflammatory responses and nylon was shown to degrade in the long-term (21). Currently, nearly all constructed nondegradable meshes are made from 1 of three bones materials: polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate polyester or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) (22). The characteristics of the different types of synthetic nondegradable mesh are presented in Table 2.
Table two
The materials used in synthetic nondegradable mesh
| Material | Mesh | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Polypropylene | Prolene | Rigid, inert, used in about woven prostheses |
| Marlex | ||
| Parietene* | ||
| Surgipro* | ||
| Polyethylene terephthalate polyester | Dacron | Elastic, hydrophilic, also bachelor as large-pore woven mesh |
| Mersilene† | ||
| Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) | Gore-Tex‡ | Rigid, hydrophobic, low integration decreases take a chance of adhesions |
| Teflon |
Constructed degradable materials were intended to reduce adhesions and provide a safety alternative for placement in infected fields (Table 3). Vicryl (Ethicon, USA) and Dexon (American Cyanamid Co, United states of america), for example, are used in open up abdominal wounds. The drawback to these meshes, even so, is that they degrade inside one to 3 months and are associated with loftier recurrence rates (23–27). To overcome early degradation, newer synthetic biomaterial meshes take been adult. For example, Gore Bio-A (WL Gore and Assembly, USA) mesh degrades in six months and has been shown to reduce recurrence rates, infection and hurting (23,28,29). Phasix (Bard Davol Inc, USA) (23,30) and Tigr Matrix (Novus Scientific, USA) (31–33) also degrade over several months and are useful in hernia repair, as has been demonstrated in preclinical creature (23,31,32) and human pilot (33) studies. The long-term effectiveness of these newer synthetic degradable meshes remains to be tested in clinical practise.
Table 3
Constructed degradable meshes(23)
| Fabric | Mesh | Degradation time |
|---|---|---|
| Polyglactin | Vicryl* | 1–3 months |
| Polyglycolic acrid | Dexon† | 1–three months |
| Polyglycolic acid/trimethylene carbonate | Gore Bio-A‡ | 6 months |
| Poly-four-hydroxybutyrate | Phasix§ | 12–18 months |
| Polyglycolide/polylactide/trimethylene carbonate | Tigr Matrix¶ | Includes two different fibre compositions; partially degrades in 4 months, completely degrades subsequently three years |
Biological meshes were used for hernia repair considering they were believed to promote regeneration, rather than scarring, and considering they could likewise be used in contaminated or infected fields (34). Biological meshes are typically manufactured from decellularized human being, porcine or bovine dermis; bovine or equine pericardium; or porcine intestinal submucosa (Table four) (35). The most commonly used biological meshes include Alloderm (LifeCell, USA) (allogenic dermis collagen), Permacol (Medtronic, Usa) (cross-linked porcine dermis collagen), Strattice (LifeCell, Usa) (not-cross-linked porcine dermis collagen), and Surgisis (Melt Biodesign, United states) (porcine intestine collagen). Alloderm is more expensive (36) and, in general, human dermal meshes have a higher recurrence rate than xenogenics (37). The porcine dermis collagens have a slightly meliorate side effect profile than Alloderm and Surgisis, demonstrated by lower rates of seroma germination, lower full surgical morbidity (38), lower failure rates, and longer time to failure in contaminated or infected fields (39). Porcine materials are easier to manufacture than allomatrices: they can be harvested in larger and more consistent sheets, and harvesting conditions can exist better controlled. Porcine acellular dermal matrices do take drawbacks, however, such as requiring modifications to curb the intense immune response (xl). Modifications can be achieved through chemical cross-linking of collagen fibres, every bit well as enzymatic removal of antigenic groups in the collagen (which enables the employ of non-cross-linked porcine materials)(40). Interestingly, cantankerous-linked porcine dermis meshes are associated with a heightened foreign body reaction and pronounced early on inflammatory response (41,42), while non-cross-linked porcine meshes demonstrate fewer adhesions and complications (40). Although biological meshes are routinely used in infected fields, their high costs remain a bulwark to widespread use (43). In improver, there is insufficient evidence in the literature regarding the advantages of biologic meshes over synthetic meshes in hernia repair (44–46).
Tabular array four
Biological mesh materials
| Mesh | Examples |
| Allogenic | |
| Human dermis | Alloderm (LifeCell, Usa) |
| Allomax (Bard Davol Inc, U.s.a.) | |
| FlexHD (Ethicon, USA) | |
| Xenogenic | |
| Porcine dermis | Permacol (Medtronic, U.s.) |
| Collamend (Bard Davol Inc, USA) | |
| Strattice (LifeCell, USA) | |
| XenMatriX (Bard Davol Inc, The states) | |
| Porcine intestine | Surgisis (Cook Biodesign, U.s.) |
| Fortagen (Organogenesis Inc, Usa) | |
| Bovine dermis | SurgiMend (TEI Biosciences, United states of america) |
| Bovine pericardium | Veritas (Synovis Surgical Innovations, USA) |
| Tutopas (Mentor Corp, U.s.a.) | |
| Periguard (Synovis Surgical Innovations, U.s.) |
Composite meshes consist of 2 or more distinct components and were developed to improve the side result profiles of meshes. Many composite meshes are 'biface implants' – meshes with a porous external surface to encourage tissue integration and a smooth microporous internal surface to prevent adhesions when placed in contact with viscera. The external surface generally consists of a nondegradable synthetic material, while the visceral surface tin can be whatsoever combination of degradable or nondegradable, synthetic or biological materials, such every bit polyglactin, collagen, polyglecaprone, cellulose, titanium, omega-3, monocryl, polyvinylidene fluoride and hyaluronate (47,48). Some other group of composite meshes are not biface, just rather consist of a nondegradable synthetic mesh with a temporary barrier coating (48). Temporary barrier coated meshes have a barrier coating that is degradable and consists of a cloth that discourages adhesion formation, ordinarily hydrophilic coatings such as collagen. Thus, they theoretically promote integration and prevent adhesion formation during the initial period of implantation and then become a regular constructed nondegradable mesh afterwards the coating degrades. Examples of composite mesh currently on the market place include Vypro (Ethicon, USA), Parietex composite (Medtronic, U.s.), Composix (Bard Davol Inc, USA), Proceed (Ethicon, The states), Dynamesh (FEG Textiltechnik, Germany), Sepramesh (Bard Davol Inc, The states), Ventralight ST (Bard Davol Inc, USA), Ultrapro (Ethicon, Usa), Ti-mesh (Medtronic, United states of america) and C-Qur (Atrium Medical, USA).
TISSUE Engineering science PRINCIPLES OF MESH Design
The principles of functional tissue technology (49) were originally adult to serve as a guide for designing implants that supervene upon or repair body structures with important biomechanical functions. These principles include measuring the mechanical properties of normal tissue, prioritizing and selecting the nearly important physical properties of the tissue as they relate to the pathophysiology of disease, and engineering materials to overcome the current hurdles and complications. The following give-and-take presents some of the near of import properties considered in hernia mesh design and manufacturing (Table 5).
Table v
Important properties of mesh
| Belongings | Definition | Goals/recommendations (reference[s]) |
|---|---|---|
| Biocompatibility | Capacity to be implanted without producing an agin effect | Non-toxic cloth with lowest corporeality of immune reaction (all materials produce some degree of reaction) |
| Mechanical properties | ||
| Tensile strength | Maximum stress that a material tin withstand while beingness stretched before failing or breaking | At least 32N/cm in the strongest management, at least 16N/cm in the weakest (59) |
| Stiffness (Figure 3A) | The extent to which a fabric resists deformation in response to force | Goals stated as measures of elasticity (currently no standardized range of values). |
| Elasticity (Figure 3B) | The trend to return to original shape after being deformed; measured by the rubberband modulus, the tendency to be non-permanently deformed in response to a forcefulness | At nearly 30% at 32N/cm (47) |
| Compliance (Figure 3C) | The amount of displacement or deformation in response to a unit strength | Goals stated as measures of elasticity (currently no standardized range of values) |
| Porosity and weight | ||
| Porosity | The percentage of mesh not occupied by mesh material | (Currently no standardized range of values). |
| Pore size (Effigy 3D) | The area between mesh filaments | Pores >75 µm allow macrophage infiltration, neovascularization and incorporation (74); pores >1 mm prevent granuloma bridging for polypropylene mesh (75,76) |
| Effective pores (Figure 3E) | The round area between mesh filaments not occupied by granulomatous tissue | Round interfilament altitude of 1 mm for polypropylene mesh (lxx) |
| Weight | Measure of mass per unit of measurement of area | (Currently no standardized range of values) |
| Deposition | Disappearance of the mesh material | half-dozen months for scar tissue to reach its maximum strength; (23,88,135) for adhesion formation the timeframe is unclear (128) |
| Constitution | The structural class of the mesh, including monofilament, multifilament, or foil structures | Monofilament mesh is preferable to multifilament mesh, due to a better side effect contour regarding foreign body reaction and infection |
| Anisotropy (Figure 3F) | The degree to which mechanical properties differ in response to applied loads in diverse directions; measured by the ratio between the rubberband moduli in each axis for a given mesh | If mesh is anisotropic, its directionality must be best-selling to accost the forces it is discipline to (currently no standardized range of values) |
One useful concept to consider through the post-obit word is the difference between 'knit' and 'woven'. With knitting, a continuous filament is looped effectually some other; while in weaving, a series of parallel strands are alternately passed over and under another fix of parallel strands (Effigy two). Knit fabrics are more porous and flexible, while woven fabrics unremarkably showroom the same mechanical properties in each centrality. Synthetic meshes (with the exception of the foils, such every bit ePTFE) are generally knitted, not woven (50).
Differences between woven and knitted fabrics. Woven fabrics consist of a series of parallel strands alternately passed over and under another set of parallel strands. Knit fabrics, such as the polypropylene mesh shown, consists of continuous filaments that are looped effectually 1 another
Biocompatibility
The biocompatibility of mesh is dependent on a multitude of variables and is quantified in terms of the degree by which the material induces a foreign body reaction. Quantification includes measurement of the number of inflammatory cells (macrophages and granulocytes) present in the vicinity, granuloma size, vascularization, collagen deposition and mesh migration (51). Substantially all materials used in mesh development are chemically and physically inert, nonimmunogenic and not-toxic, however none are biologically inert and all, including the biological meshes (52), trigger an array of adverse events, including a foreign body reaction (53). The predominant hypothesis for the foreign body reaction in inert nonimmunogenic materials is the protein absorption theory, in which proteins nonspecifically attach to the material surface and afterwards lose patterns in their tertiary construction, revealing hidden binding domains that elicit an immune response (54). The proteins that attach to the foreign body depend on the material and oft include immunoglobulins, C3, fibrinogen and cistron XII. Information technology has been proposed that the deviation in adsorption determines the differences in strange trunk reactions. Subsequently, immune cells are recruited and giant cells form and plant granulomas effectually the foreign material. Ultimately, a fibrotic capsule forms around the foreign material (55,56). Of the materials commonly used as mesh, polypropylene may elicit the strongest strange-body reaction (56). Additionally, multifilamentous polypropylene mesh may promote added fibrosis compared with monofilamentous polypropylene (57).
Mechanical properties
Tensile forcefulness is probably the most commonly discussed mechanical belongings of mesh. Tensile strength is defined equally the maximum force per cross sectional expanse that the material can withstand earlier failure or break (47). Force per cross sectional area is known as 'stress' and is measured in units of pressure, Pa or N/cm2 (58). Considering meshes are produced with a standard thickness, sometimes tensile strength is presented as N/cm width of mesh, omitting the value of the thickness, which is presumed a fixed amount. Apparently, the ultimate tensile force needs to be adequate to withstand the amount of force that is exerted on the intestinal wall. Most commercially available meshes exceed the required tensile force to withstand the physiological forces of the abdominal wall (59). Nonetheless, mechanical failure of synthetic permanent mesh has been reported in the literature and appears to be sectional to lightweight meshes (threescore–63).
Elasticity, compliance and stiffness are terms that are oft confused or inaccurately used interchangeably. Elasticity is defined as the tendency of a material to render to its original shape later on being deformed and is measured by the elastic modulus. The rubberband modulus is derived from the gradient of the stress-strain curve and, depending on its awarding, can be measured on the initial part of the curve or the part that has the greatest functional importance. Elasticity is too expressed as the amount of displacement in response to a specific measure of stress. Information technology is an important property because meshes that are stretched out but do not return to their original size, will likely lead to recurrent hernias. The natural elasticity of the abdominal wall has been estimated to be approximately 38% at 32N/cm, and an elasticity >thirty% at 32N/cm may allow for more stretching than the normal intestinal wall would let and, therefore, may not be suitable for a functional repair (47). On the other hand, a mesh with depression elasticity would restrict abdominal wall distention, resulting in pain and mesh failure. Information technology has been suggested that the lowest range for mesh elasticity is betwixt 4% and 15% at 16N/cm (64).
Stiffness is defined as the extent to which an object resists deformation in response to an applied force and is the inverse of compliance. Overly stiff materials are more probable to dehisce from the abdominal wall and cause pain when the patient moves. Some have described mesh stiffness as the caliber of the maximum load and strain at the maximum load, but stiffness and compliance are non common measurements (59).
Pore size and weight
Pore size and weight are key aspects of mesh design, particularly with the more recently developed big-pore lightweight mesh (65–68). Pores <10 mm generally impede man cellular penetration and tissue ingrowth (69). Pore sizes ≤75 mm may hinder the access of antimicrobial agents and host allowed cells to leaner, thus, predisposing the material to bacterial colonization and infection. Such meshes are sometimes referred to equally microporous meshes, every bit opposed to macroporous meshes with pore sizes >75 mm (70). The ePTFE foils (eg, Dualmesh [WL Gore and Associates, U.s.]) are the but microporous synthetic meshes and as such, often require removal when infected (71–73). As the pore size increases to 100 μm to 300 μm, neovascularization and tissue integration are frequently observed, only granuloma bridging becomes a concern (56). Granuloma bridging, or the coalescence of the strange torso response around mesh fibres, can clog the pores and prevent further tissue integration (Figure 4) (56). In polypropylene meshes, when pore sizes are <1 mm, granulomas tin can become confluent, encapsulate the mesh and create a stiff plate with reduced flexibility (seventy,74–76).
Granuloma bridging. When pores are small-scale, granulomas go confluent, leaving no remaining effective pores. In big-pore meshes, granulomas surround the mesh fibres merely exercise not occupy the entire pore
Although it was previously believed that big pore size would delay incorporation (77), this has not been observed in practice. In fact, the opposite has been described, in which large-pore meshes (with lower surface-expanse-to-book ratios) result in a milder foreign-body reaction. The trade-off, however, is that reduced mesh fabric results in a base mesh with reduced force.
Weight is another factor in mesh blueprint. Mesh weight is partially dependent on polymer weight (74) only is mainly a part of pore size (75). With greater pore sizes, less material is used to construct the mesh, and mesh weight is reduced. In general, lightweight meshes tend to weigh approximately 33 grand/grand2, while heavyweight meshes tend to weigh approximately 100 grand/10002 (47,74). The rationale for regarding weight equally an independent variable from pore size is the hypothesis that lighter weight meshes volition take a smaller strange trunk burden (78) and a smaller biomaterial surface surface area (79) and, thus, should elicit a less intense strange torso reaction. Some studies confirm this effect in practice and merits that lower weight results in fewer complications, while others exercise not (63,80). Specific recommendations regarding the platonic mesh weight remain to be determined. In improver, while some have attempted to allocate mesh based on weight, such attempts and their cutoff points have not been completely supported past the evidence (70).
In practice, large-pore lightweight meshes are reported to have a similar profile to small-pore heavyweight meshes (81,82). At least 1 report demonstrated higher rates of shrinkage for large-pore lightweight mesh compared with modest-pore heavyweight meshes (83). Some studies accept suggested that large-pore lightweight meshes result in superior tissue integration (84), improve elasticity (85) and a lower incidence of pain (86), while other studies report a higher recurrence charge per unit for large-pore lightweight mesh in laparoscopically repaired groin hernias, especially in larger hernias (87).
Degradation
Degradation, defined every bit the disappearance of mesh or gradual pass up in its mass, tin be desirable or undesirable. In meshes that are degradable, the goal is to have the mesh last until scar or regenerative tissue replaces it and matures to maximum strength. From early experiences with Vicryl and Dexon, it is known that a three-calendar month time frame for degradation would exist inadequate (23–25). Recent data suggest a degradation time of half-dozen months could be successful, equally evidenced by the studies that have demonstrated adequate outcomes with the Gore Bio-A mesh (23,28,29). This is analogous to studies in skin wound healing, which suggest that wounds regain 80% of their original strength by 6 months (88). Nonetheless, the long-term recurrence rate of the Gore Bio-A mesh remains loftier, ranging from 13% to 37.five%, and it has been suggested that 12 months may be a better time frame for mesh degradation to ensure maturation of the scar tissue (28,29,89,90). This is where newer synthetic degradable meshes that have fifty-fifty slower degradation rates, such as Phasix and Tigr Matrix, could play a office.
In spanning defects that require the mesh to remain indefinitely to provide structural support, degradable mesh is contraindicated because the recurrence charge per unit is nearly 100% (91). Unfortunately, even not-degradable mesh may slowly degrade. Polyester meshes are known to take the drawback of long-term degradation, which renders them unsuitable for long-term support (92). Recently, attention has even been drawn to the degradation of polypropylene, one of the about widely used materials in mesh development (93). Information technology has been suggested that the degradation of polypropylene is accelerated with exposure of the textile to rut during the manufacturing process (94). Early on degradation of a mesh that is not intended to degrade may contribute to mechanical failure and hernia recurrence.
Another discussion regarding mesh degradation includes understanding what replaces the mesh once it has degraded: scar or regenerated tissue. For example, cantankerous-linked porcine meshes are more antigenic and, are thus, replaced by scar, whereas non-cantankerous-linked meshes are less antigenic and are replaced by regenerate tissue. Regenerate tissue exhibits a greater degree of cellular infiltration, degradation, degradation of extracellular matrix, neovascularization, lower inflammatory cell response, and less scar encapsulation, whereas scar tissue has limited host cell and vessel infiltration, more fibrotic matrix, and aligned collagen deposition (40,95).
Constitution
Constructed mesh tin be monofilament (mesh fibres are unmarried filaments) or multifilament (mesh fibres consist of multiple filaments). Examples of multifilament meshes include Mersilene (a synthetic non-degradable multifilament mesh), Vicryl (a degradable multifilament mesh), and Vypro and Parietex (blended multifilament meshes) (74). Multifilament meshes are more pliable than monofilament meshes (96). Although some maintain that multifilament and mono-filament mesh are comparable in terms of infection risks (97), the evidence suggests that multifilament meshes have higher infection rates and stronger foreign body reactions, due to the inaccessible crevices betwixt the filaments, and larger surface areas (98–100).
Anisotropy
Anisotropy is the degree to which mechanical properties differ in response to practical loads in various directions and is quantified by the ratio betwixt the elastic moduli in each axis for a given mesh (101). Near all synthetic meshes exhibit various degrees of anisotropy. This is the result of constructed mesh being a knit textile as opposed to a woven cloth.
Because mechanical properties differ greatly based on directionality in knitted mesh, information technology has been recommended that anisotropy be identified and marked on the meshes to help surgeons orient meshes during implantation to optimize postsurgical outcomes (59,101,102). The rationale that the meshes should be aligned to maximally resist forces has withal to be tested or verified (101).
COMPLICATIONS
Hernia recurrence/infection
The most common complexity following use of a surgical mesh is hernia recurrence (10,103–105). Fundamentally, recurrence is acquired past early deposition of the mesh, early on removal of the mesh (equally necessary following infections) or mesh failure (Figure v) (34,45,106). Mesh failure is caused by central mesh failure (mesh fracture) (60–63) or fixation/suture line failure (107). Central mesh failure almost always occurs in lightweight but not heavyweight meshes (60–63). Suture line failure is common and is typically reported equally surgeon inexperience or fixation technique dependent. This is why so much effort is being made to discover superior fixation techniques (108–111).
Mesh failure in a patient with tack fixation. The mesh is seen upwards to the point shown by the white arrows. The blackness arrows evidence tacks without any surrounding mesh
The charge per unit of infection for open up ventral incisional hernia repair is reported to be vi% to 10% (73). Patient- and procedure-related take a chance factors include obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, previous surgical site infection, performance of other procedures via the same incision at the fourth dimension of repair, longer operative fourth dimension, lack of tissue coverage of the mesh, enterotomy and enterocutaneous fistula (73). Mesh-related risk factors include the utilise of larger mesh sheets, microporous meshes or ePTFE mesh (73). Biological prostheses are commonly used in circuitous, contaminated, or potentially contaminated fields, just the verbal reason why these biomaterials are safer to use is unclear (112). Controversy exists as to whether synthetic nondegradable meshes are also safe to use in an infected field (112–114). The business concern is that once the infection is seeded on the nondegradable mesh, the infection volition non resolve and an additional operation will exist needed to remove the mesh. Some authors believe that at that place is a place for nondegradable meshes in infected fields, particularly because of the high costs of biologic meshes (115–117). Synthetic degradable meshes, however, have shown promise as a potential alternative to the biologicals for utilize in complex or infected fields (118).
One newly emerging concept is that of drug-eluting meshes, which let for local commitment of antibiotics (119). Several studies have described methods wherein the prosthesis is coated with antibiotic containing solution; withal, this may also modify its porosity, surface morphology and biomechanics (119–123). Antibiotic-eluting meshes could decrease bacterial contamination and biofilm formation. In addition, local drug delivery systems offer greater efficacy, prolonged drug activity, lower drug dose requirements, lower probabilities of antimicrobial resistance and by and large lower toxicity (124,125).
Adhesion
For bridging meshes or when meshes are placed within the abdomen, viscera-mesh adhesion is a concern (Figure half dozen). Several studies have shown that biface (126) and bulwark-coated (127) blended meshes are constructive at reducing adhesion germination. A potential problem with temporary barrier coated meshes is that there is no specific timeline for adhesion formation (128); they tin occur whatsoever time after mesh implantation. Stable hydrophilic coatings that exercise not degrade have been applied to address this issue, but this solution is yet in its early on stages and only limited animal model data be (129). In general, ePTFE meshes have relatively low adhesion rates (130). Lightweight meshes take also been reported to showroom low adhesion rates, which is presumably due to ameliorate integration and less foreign body reaction (131).
Postoperative pain
Postoperative pain is too a common complexity of incisional hernia repair (132). While astute and early postoperative pain may exist related to the type of mesh used, it is every bit likely attributable to nerve damage from the operation (74). On the other hand, late-onset chronic postoperative pain is generally considered to be a complication of the mesh itself, and is most commonly associated with strange body reaction and the resulting stiffness and shrinkage. In lite of these information, some hypothesize that lightweight mesh or fully degradable mesh may decrease the risk for chronic hurting (133).
CONCLUSION
The tissue engineering science principle of 'replacing like with like' should exist applied in intestinal wall reconstruction; nonetheless, intestinal wall backdrop are difficult to replicate due to its complex beefcake and dynamic requirements. In an effort to reduce ventral incisional hernia recurrence and the overwhelming associated costs, every effort should be made to choose the well-nigh appropriate mesh, every bit in certain settings, one blazon of mesh may be favoured over another. Manufacturers of mesh aim to improve their product past altering the properties described in the present commodity with each new product. Unfortunately, there is currently no ideal mesh, and surgeons must choose the 'all-time' available mesh given a clinical scenario. The present article presents the bones principles of mesh pattern to provide mesh users information on the many different types of meshes available, the properties of mesh and the critical issues facing the field of hernia repair.
A to C The difference between stiffness, elasticity and compliance. A stiff object ( A ) does non hands undergo deformation by force. An rubberband object ( B ) will return to its original form when tension is released, upwardly to the point where it undergoes plastic deformation. This bespeak is considered to be the ultimate tensile strength of the object as opposed to the betoken of complete tearing. A compliant object that is not elastic ( C ) will deform readily and volition not return to its original length. D and E Pores and effective pores. Pore size refers to the area betwixt mesh fibres. Effective pores refer to pores that do not become occupied with granuloma tissue. This is ofttimes measured past pores that can fit spheres of a specific bore (eg, 1 mm for polypropylene). F Anisotropy. This figure shows a polypropylene mesh when subject area to strength pulling in two perpendicular directions. When pulled in one direction, the mesh demonstrates minimal displacement, but when subject to strength in the other centrality, the displacement is evident
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the post-obit individuals for their indispensable assistance in preparing the manuscript: Jeffrey Scott PhD (CR Bard, Inc [Davol]); Elizabeth Lorden and Greg Coultas (Duke Academy, Pratt Schoolhouse of Engineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering); and Jina Kim Dr. (Duke University Medical Eye, Section of Surgery).
Footnotes
DISCLOSURES: The authors have no financial disclosures or conflicts of involvement to declare.
REFERENCES
1. Le Huu Nho R, Mege D, Ouaissi M, Sielezneff I, Sastre B. Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia. J Visc Surg. 2012;149:e3–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Wechter ME, Pearlman Doctor, Hartmann KE. Reclosure of the disrupted laparotomy wound: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:376–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Pauli EM, Rosen MJ. Open up ventral hernia repair with component separation. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93:1111–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Futaba M. Systematic review and meta-assay of the incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure. World J Surg. 2012;36:973–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
v. Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN. The modern direction of incisional hernias. BMJ. 2012;344:e2843. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
half-dozen. Poulose BK, Shelton J, Phillips S, et al. Epidemiology and price of ventral hernia repair: Making the case for hernia research. Hernia. 2012;sixteen:179–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Bower C, Roth JS. Economics of abdominal wall reconstruction. Surg Clin Due north Am. 2013;93:1241–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eight. Rutkow IM. Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the Usa in 2003. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1045–51. five–half-dozen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ten. Peralta R, Latifi R. Long-term outcomes of abdominal wall reconstruction. what are the real numbers? Globe J Surg. 2012;36:534–eight. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eleven. El-Gazzaz G, Erem HH, Aytac Due east, Salcedo L, Stocchi L, Kiran RP. Risk of infection and hernia recurrence for patients undergoing ventral hernia repair with non-absorbable or biological mesh during open bowel procedures. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:315–twenty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Gronnier C, Wattier JM, Favre H, Piessen G, Mariette C. Risk factors for chronic pain after open ventral hernia repair by underlay mesh placement. Earth J Surg. 2012;36:1548–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Bensley RP, Schermerhorn ML, Hurks R, et al. Take a chance of late-onset adhesions and incisional hernia repairs later surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1159–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Xing Fifty, Culbertson EJ, Wen Y, Franz MG. Early laparotomy wound failure as the machinery for incisional hernia formation. J Surg Res. 2013;182:e35–42. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xv. Luijendijk 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–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xvi. Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC, et al. Comparison of outcomes of constructed mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: A systematic review and meta-assay. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:415–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Breuing Yard, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: Review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148:544–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. "Components separation" method for closure of intestinal-wall defects: An anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86:519–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Blatnik J, Jin J, Rosen M. Intestinal hernia repair with bridging acellular dermal matrix--an expensive hernia sac. Am J Surg. 2008;196:47–l. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Jin J, Rosen MJ, Blatnik J, et al. Use of acellular dermal matrix for complicated ventral hernia repair: Does technique impact outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:654–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN. From ancient to contemporary times: A concise history of incisional hernia repair. Hernia. 2012;xvi:1–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Poussier M, Deneve E, Blanc P, et al. A review of available prosthetic textile for abdominal wall repair. J Visc Surg. 2013;150:52–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Deeken CR, Matthews BD. Label of the mechanical force, resorption properties, and histologic characteristics of a fully absorbable material (poly-four-hydroxybutyrate-PHASIX mesh) in a porcine model of hernia repair. ISRN Surg. 2013;2013:238067. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Gadacz TR, Chase JA, Knuckles S. Technology of prosthetic material. Semin Laparosc Surg. 1994;1:123–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Nagy KK, Fildes JJ, Mahr C, et al. Feel with 3 prosthetic materials in temporary abdominal wall closure. Am Surg. 1996;62:331–v. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Buck JR, Fath JJ, Chung SK, Sorensen VJ, Horst HM, Obeid FN. Use of absorbable mesh as an aid in abdominal wall closure in the emergent setting. Am Surg. 1995;61:655–vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Sriussadaporn S, Sriussadaporn S, Pakart R, Krittayakirana K, Prichayuhd S. Planned ventral hernia with absorbable mesh: A life-saving method in relaparotomy for septic abdomen. J Med Assoc Thai. 2010;93:449–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Symeonidis D, Efthimiou Chiliad, Koukoulis Yard, Athanasiou Due east, Mamaloudis I, Tzovaras M. Open inguinal hernia repair with the use of polyglycolic acid/trimethylene carbonate absorbable mesh: A disquisitional update of the long-term results. Hernia. 2013;17:85–vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Symeonidis D, Efthimiou G, Koukoulis G, Mamaloudis I, Ioannou Grand, Tzovaras Chiliad. Open inguinal hernia repair with the apply of polyglycolic acid/trimethylene carbonate mesh: Gross and pathologic assessment of the inguinal area at reoperation for recurrence. Hernia. 2013;17:791–four. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Martin DP, Badhwar A, Shah DV, et al. Characterization of poly-iv-hydroxybutyrate mesh for hernia repair applications. J Surg Res. 2013;184:766–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Hjort H, Mathisen T, Alves A, Clermont Chiliad, Boutrand JP. Iii-year results from a preclinical implantation study of a long-term resorbable surgical mesh with time-dependent mechanical characteristics. Hernia. 2012;xvi:191–seven. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Peeters E, van Barneveld KW, Schreinemacher MH, et al. One-twelvemonth outcome of biological and synthetic bioabsorbable meshes for augmentation of large abdominal wall defects in a rabbit model. J Surg Res. 2013;180:274–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Ruiz-Jasbon F, Norrby J, Ivarsson ML, Bjorck S. Inguinal hernia repair using a constructed long-term resorbable mesh: Results from a iii-year prospective rubber and operation study. Hernia. 2014;18:723–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Bellows CF, Alder A, Helton WS. Abdominal wall reconstruction using biological tissue grafts: Nowadays status and future opportunities. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2006;3:657–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Brown P. Abdominal wall reconstruction using biological tissue grafts. AORN J. 2009;90:513–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. El-Hayek KM, Chand B. Biologic prosthetic materials for hernia repairs. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2010;xx:159–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Beale EW, Hoxworth RE, Livingston EH, Trussler AP. The role of biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: A systematic review of the current literature. Am J Surg. 2012;204:510–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Slater NJ, van der Kolk One thousand, Hendriks T, van Goor H, Bleichrodt RP. Biologic grafts for ventral hernia repair: A systematic review. Am J Surg. 2013;205:220–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Smart NJ, Marshall Thousand, Daniels IR. Biological meshes: A review of their use in abdominal wall hernia repairs. Surgeon. 2012;10:159–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Butler CE, Burns NK, Campbell KT, Mathur AB, Jaffari MV, Rios CN. Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:368–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ. The biology of biologics: Bones scientific discipline and clinical concepts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:9S–17S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Clemens MW, Selber JC, Liu J, et al. Bovine versus porcine acellular dermal matrix for complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:71–ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Peppas One thousand, Gkegkes ID, Makris MC, Falagas ME. Biological mesh in hernia repair, abdominal wall defects, and reconstruction and treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A review of the clinical evidence. Am Surg. 2010;76:1290–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS. Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: A systematic review of current testify. Am J Surg. 2013;205:85–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Ditzel M, Deerenberg EB, Grotenhuis N, et al. Biologic meshes are not superior to synthetic meshes in ventral hernia repair: An experimental study with long-term follow-upward evaluation. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3654–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Hiles M, Record Ritchie RD, Altizer AM. Are biologic grafts constructive for hernia repair?: A systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov. 2009;xvi:26–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Bilsel Y, Abci I. The search for ideal hernia repair; mesh materials and types. Int J Surg. 2012;10:317–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Cevasco M, Itani KM. Ventral hernia repair with synthetic, composite, and biologic mesh: Characteristics, indications, and infection profile. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2012;13:209–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Butler DL, Goldstein SA, Guilak F. Functional tissue engineering: The role of biomechanics. J Biomech Eng. 2000;122:570–five. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Cobb WS, Peindl RM, Zerey M, Carbonell AM, Heniford BT. Mesh terminology 101. Hernia. 2009;xiii:1–vi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Brandt CJ, Kammer D, Fiebeler A, Klinge U. Beneficial effects of hydrocortisone or spironolactone blanket on strange trunk response to mesh biomaterial in a mouse model. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;99:335–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Novitsky YW, Orenstein SB, Kreutzer DL. Comparative analysis of histopathologic responses to implanted porcine biologic meshes. Hernia. 2014;18:713–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Rosch R, Junge K. Long-term Inertness of Meshes. In: Schumpelick 5, Nyhus Fifty, editors. Meshes: Benefits and Risks. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2004. pp. 170–8. [Google Scholar]
54. Grainger DW. All charged up about implanted biomaterials. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:507–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Klosterhalfen B, Hermanns B, Rosch R, Junge K. Biological response to mesh. Eur Surg. 2003;35:16–20. [Google Scholar]
56. Junge K, Binnebosel M, von Trotha KT, et al. Mesh biocompatibility: Effects of cellular inflammation and tissue remodelling. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2012;397:255–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Krause HG, Galloway SJ, Khoo SK, Lourie R, Goh JT. Biocompatible properties of surgical mesh using an animal model. Aust Northward Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;46:42–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Brown R. Handbook of polymer testing: Physical methods. CRC printing; 1999. [Google Scholar]
59. Pott PP, Schwarz ML, Gundling R, Nowak K, Hohenberger P, Roessner ED. Mechanical properties of mesh materials used for hernia repair and soft tissue augmentation. PLoS One. 2012;7:e46978. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
lx. Langer C, Neufang T, Kley C, Liersch T, Becker H. Central mesh recurrence afterward incisional hernia repair with Marlex – are the meshes strong enough? Hernia. 2001;5:164–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Lintin LA, Kingsnorth AN. Mechanical failure of a lightweight polypropylene mesh. Hernia. 2014;18:131–iii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Petro CC, Nahabet EH, Criss CN, et al. Central failures of lightweight monofilament polyester mesh causing hernia recurrence: A cautionary note. Hernia. 2015;19:155–ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Zuvela 1000, Galun D, Djuric-Stefanovic A, Palibrk I, Petrovic M, Milicevic M. Central rupture and bulging of low-weight polypropylene mesh following recurrent incisional sublay hernioplasty. Hernia. 2014;xviii:135–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Junge K, Klinge U, Prescher A, Giboni P, Niewiera Grand, Schumpelick V. Elasticity of the inductive intestinal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants. Hernia. 2001;five:113–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Berrevoet F, Maes 50, De Baerdemaeker L, Rogiers X, Troisi R, de Hemptinne B. Comparable results with iii-year follow-upwardly for big-pore versus small-pore meshes in open incisional hernia repair. Surgery. 2010;148:969–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Conze J, Rosch R, Klinge U, et al. Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: Influence of pore size and surface expanse. Hernia. 2004;8:365–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Ladurner R, Chiapponi C, Linhuber Q, Mussack T. Long term upshot and quality of life after open up incisional hernia repair – light versus heavy weight meshes. BMC Surg. 2011;11:25. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Memon MA, Khan S, Osland E. Meta-analyses of lightweight versus conventional (heavy weight) mesh in inguinal hernia surgery. Hernia. 2012;xvi:497–502. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Martakos P, Karwoski T. Healing characteristics of hybrid and conventional polytetrafluoroethylene vascular grafts. ASAIO J. 1995;41:M735–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B. Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes. Hernia. 2012;16:251–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Collage RD, Rosengart MR. Intestinal wall infections with in situ mesh. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2010;11:311–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Petersen S, Henke G, Freitag M, Faulhaber A, Ludwig G. Deep prosthesis infection in incisional hernia repair: Predictive factors and clinical effect. Eur J Surg. 2001;167:453–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Sanchez VM, Abi-Haidar YE, Itani KM. Mesh infection in ventral incisional hernia repair: Incidence, contributing factors, and handling. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2011;12:205–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Klinge U. Experimental comparing of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: Less weight does not mean less biological response. Earth J Surg. 2007;31:867–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Klosterhalfen B, Junge G, Klinge U. The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2005;ii:103–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Goldstein H. Selecting the right mesh. Hernia. 1999;three:23–vi. [Google Scholar]
78. Orenstein SB, Saberski ER, Kreutzer DL, Novitsky YW. Comparative assay of histopathologic effects of constructed meshes based on material, weight, and pore size in mice. J Surg Res. 2012;176:423–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Chatzimavroudis G, Papaziogas B, Koutelidakis I, Atmatzidis Thousand. Experimental comparison of monofile lite and heavy polypropylene meshes: Less weight does not mean less biological response. Earth J Surg. 2007;31:865. author reply 6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Weyhe D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O, et al. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: Less weight does non mean less biological response. Globe J Surg. 2006;30:1586–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Currie A, Andrew H, Tonsi A, Hurley PR, Taribagil S. Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2126–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Pascual G, Hernandez-Gascon B, Rodriguez M, et al. The long-term behavior of lightweight and heavyweight meshes used to repair abdominal wall defects is determined by the host tissue repair process provoked past the mesh. Surgery. 2012;152:886–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Zogbi L, Trindade EN, Trindade MR. Comparative written report of shrinkage, inflammatory response and fibroplasia in heavyweight and lightweight meshes. Hernia. 2013;17:765–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar germination in a rat model. J Surg Res. 2002;103:208–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Bellon JM, Rodriguez M, Garcia-Honduvilla North, Gomez-Gil V, Pascual G, Bujan J. Comparing the beliefs of dissimilar polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;89:448–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Agarwal BB, Agarwal KA, Mahajan KC. Prospective double-bullheaded randomized controlled study comparing heavy- and lightweight polypropylene mesh in totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: Early results. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:242–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Chowbey PK, Garg N, Sharma A, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal groin hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:3073–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Baum CL, Arpey CJ. Normal cutaneous wound healing: Clinical correlation with cellular and molecular events. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31:674–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Negro P, Campanelli G, Ipponi PL, et al. Selective use of bioabsorbable Gore BIO-A plug and patch for groin hernia repair: Annotate to: Open inguinal hernia repair with the use of polyglycolic acid/trimethylene carbonate absorbable mesh: A critical update of the long term results. Symeonidis D, Efthimiou One thousand, Koukoulis G, Athanasiou E, Mamaloudis I, Tzovaras G. Hernia 2013, 17:85–87. Hernia. 2013;17:795–six. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90. Symeonidis D, Efthimou One thousand, Koukoulis One thousand, Tzovaras 1000. Is information technology actually worth it? : Answer to: Selective use of bioabsorbable Gore BIO-A plug and patch for groin hernia repair. Negro P, Campanelli K, Ipponi PL, Gossetti F, Dassatti MR, Manto O, D'Amore L. Hernia. 2013;17:795–six. Hernia 2014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Huang K, Ding Ten, Lv B, et al. Reconstruction of big-size intestinal wall defect using biodegradable poly-p-dioxanone mesh: An experimental canine study. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:57. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Schumpelick V, Tietze 50. Polymers in hernia repair – common polyester vs. polypropylene surgical meshes. J Mater Sci. 2000;35:4769–76. [Google Scholar]
93. Ostergard DR. Degradation, infection and heat effects on polypropylene mesh for pelvic implantation: What was known and when information technology was known. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:771–iv. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Sternschuss G, Ostergard DR, Patel H. Post-implantation alterations of polypropylene in the homo. J Urol. 2012;188:27–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Cavallo JA, Greco SC, Liu J, Frisella MM, Deeken CR, Matthews BD. Remodeling characteristics and biomechanical backdrop of a crosslinked versus a non-crosslinked porcine dermis scaffolds in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2015;19:207–18. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Robinson TN, Clarke JH, Schoen J, Walsh Medico. Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair: Events reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1556–threescore. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Jezupors A, Mihelsons M. The analysis of infection after polypropylene mesh repair of abdominal wall hernia. World J Surg. 2006;30:2270–eight. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Beets GL, Go PM, van Mameren H. Foreign torso reactions to monofilament and braided polypropylene mesh used as preperitoneal implants in pigs. Eur J Surg. 1996;162:823–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99. Goldstein HS. Selecting the right mesh. Hernia. 1999;three:23–6. [Google Scholar]
100. Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerberg B, Piroth C, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick 5. Do multifilament alloplastic meshes increment the infection rate? Analysis of the polymeric surface, the leaner adherence, and the in vivo consequences in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63:765–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Saberski ER, Orenstein SB, Novitsky YW. Anisotropic evaluation of synthetic surgical meshes. Hernia. 2011;fifteen:47–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Anurov MV, Titkova SM, Oettinger AP. Biomechanical compatibility of surgical mesh and fascia existence reinforced: Dependence of experimental hernia defect repair results on anisotropic surgical mesh positioning. Hernia. 2012;xvi:199–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103. Ahonen-Siirtola Yard, Vironen J, Makela J, Paajanen H. Surgery-related complications of ventral hernia reported to the Finnish patient insurance centre. Scand J Surg. 2015;104:66–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
104. Dietz UA, Winkler MS, Hartel RW, et al. Importance of recurrence rating, morphology, hernial gap size, and risk factors in ventral and incisional hernia classification. Hernia. 2014;xviii:nineteen–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105. Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Jorgensen LN, Bisgaard T. Nationwide prospective study of outcomes later constituent incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:217–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106. Lowham AS, Filipi CJ, Fitzgibbons RJ, Jr, et al. Mechanisms of hernia recurrence later preperitoneal mesh repair. Traditional and laparoscopic. Ann Surg. 1997;225:422. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107. Barzana D, Johnson K, Clancy Goggle box, Hope WW. Hernia recurrence through a blended mesh secondary to transfascial suture holes. Hernia. 2012;16:219–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108. Guerin G, Turquier F. Bear on of the defect size, the mesh overlap and the fixation depth on ventral hernia repairs: A combined experimental and numerical approach. Hernia. 2013;17:647–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109. Muysoms F, Vander Mijnsbrugge G, Pletinckx P, et al. Randomized clinical trial of mesh fixation with "double crown" versus "sutures and tackers" in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2013;17:603–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110. Reynvoet E, Deschepper E, Rogiers X, Troisi R, Berrevoet F. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: Is in that location an optimal mesh fixation technique? A systematic review. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014;399:55–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111. Sajid MS, Parampalli U, McFall MR. A meta-analysis comparing tacker mesh fixation with suture mesh fixation in laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2013;17:159–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112. Brahmbhatt R, Martindale R, Liang MK. Jumping the gun? Evaluating the show for synthetic mesh in contaminated hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:498–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Cross West, Kumar A, Chandru Kowdley G. Biological mesh in contaminated fields--overuse without data: A systematic review of their use in abdominal wall reconstruction. Am Surg. 2014;lxxx:3–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Mariette C, Briez Northward, Denies F, et al. Use of biological mesh versus standard wound care in infected incisional ventral hernias, the SIMBIOSE report: A written report protocol for a randomized multicenter controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:131. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Carbonell AM, Cobb WS. Condom of prosthetic mesh hernia repair in contaminated fields. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93:1227–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Carbonell AM, Criss CN, Cobb WS, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ. Outcomes of constructed mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:991–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
117. Deerenberg EB, Mulder IM, Grotenhuis N, Ditzel M, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Experimental study on synthetic and biological mesh implantation in a contaminated environment. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1734–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118. Sutton PA, Evans JP, Uzair S, Varghese JV. The use of Gore Bio-A in the management of the open abdomen. BMJ Case Rep. 2013:2013. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
119. Guillaume O, Lavigne JP, Lefranc O, Nottelet B, Coudane J, Garric X. New antibiotic-eluting mesh used for soft tissue reinforcement. Acta Biomater. 2011;7:3390–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120. Elsner JJ, Zilberman K. Antibiotic-eluting bioresorbable composite fibers for wound healing applications: Microstructure, drug delivery and mechanical properties. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:2872–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121. Elsner JJ, Zilberman Yard. Novel antibiotic-eluting wound dressings: An in vitro report and engineering aspects in the dressing's design. J Tissue Viability. 2010;nineteen:54–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122. Gollwitzer H, Ibrahim Chiliad, Meyer H, Mittelmeier W, Busch R, Stemberger A. Antibacterial poly(D,50-lactic acid) coating of medical implants using a biodegradable drug delivery applied science. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51:585–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123. Kilic D, Agalar C, Ozturk E, Denkbas EB, Cime A, Agalar F. Antimicrobial activity of cefazolin-impregnated mesh grafts. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77:256–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124. Campoccia D, Montanaro 50, Speziale P, Arciola CR. Antibody-loaded biomaterials and the risks for the spread of antibiotic resistance following their rubber and therapeutic clinical use. Biomaterials. 2010;31:6363–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125. Wu P, Grainger DW. Drug/device combinations for local drug therapies and infection prophylaxis. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2450–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126. Aube C, Pessaux P, Tuech JJ, et al. Detection of peritoneal adhesions using ultrasound test for the evaluation of an innovative intraperitoneal mesh. Surg Endosc. 2004;xviii:131–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
127. Schreinemacher MH, van Barneveld KW, Dikmans RE, Gijbels MJ, Greve JW, Bouvy ND. Coated meshes for hernia repair provide comparable intraperitoneal adhesion prevention. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:4202–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128. Bringman S, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, et al. Hernia repair: The search for ideal meshes. Hernia. 2010;14:81–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
129. Emans PJ, Schreinemacher MH, Gijbels MJ, et al. Polypropylene meshes to foreclose abdominal herniation. Can stable coatings prevent adhesions in the long term? Ann Biomed Eng. 2009;37:410–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130. Koehler RH, Begos D, Berger D, et al. Minimal adhesions to ePTFE mesh after laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair: Reoperative findings in 65 cases. JSLS. 2003;7:335–forty. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131. Schug-Pass C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Kockerling F. Does the additional application of a polylactide flick (SurgiWrap) to a lightweight mesh (TiMesh) reduce adhesions subsequently laparoscopic intraperitoneal implantation procedures? Experimental results obtained with the laparoscopic porcine model. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:2433–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132. Berger D. [Diagnostics and therapy of chronic pain post-obit hernia performance] Chirurg. 2014;85:117–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
133. Sajid MS, Kalra L, Parampalli U, Sains PS, Baig MK. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of lightweight mesh against heavyweight mesh in influencing the incidence of chronic groin hurting following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2013;205:726–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
134. Forstemann T, Trzewik J, Holste J, et al. Forces and deformations of the abdominal wall – a mechanical and geometrical arroyo to the linea alba. J Biomech. 2011;44:600–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
135. Franz MG, Smith PD, Wachtel TL, et al. Fascial incisions heal faster than skin: A new model of abdominal wall repair. Surgery. 2001;129:203–eight. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Plastic Surgery are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4806756/
0 Response to "Mesh Repair Umbilical Hernia Surgery Incision Busting Open Again"
Post a Comment