Late mesh migration through the stomach wall after laparoscopic refundoplication using a dual-sided PTFE/ePTFE mesh

Foregut Erosion Related to Biomedical Implants: A Scoping Review

Introduction: Biomedical devices implanted transabdominally have gained popularity over the past 50 years in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, paraesophageal hiatal hernia, and morbid obesity. Device-related foregut erosions (FEs) represent a challenging event that demands special attention owing to the potential of severe postoperative complications and death. Purpose: The aim was to provide an overview of full-thickness foregut injury leading to erosion associated with four types of biomedical devices. Methods: The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were queried until December 31, 2023. Eligible studies included all articles reporting data, management, and outcomes on device-related FE. Results: Overall, 132 articless were included for a total of 1292 patients suffering from device-related FE. Four different devices were included: the Angelchik antireflux prosthesis (AAP) (n = 25), nonabsorbable mesh for crural repair (n = 60), adjustable gastric banding (n = 1156), and magnetic sphincter augmentation device (n = 51). The elapsed time from device implant to erosion ranged from 1 to 480 months. Most commonly reported symptoms were dysphagia and epigastric pain, while acute presentation was reported rarely and mainly for gastric banding. The technique for device removal evolved from more invasive open approaches toward minimally invasive and endoscopic techniques. Esophagectomy and gastrectomy were mostly reported for nonabsorbable mesh FE. Overall mortality was .17%. Conclusions: Device-related FE is rare but may occur many years after AAP, nonabsorbable mesh, adjustable gastric banding, and magnetic sphincter augmentation implant. FE-related mortality is infrequent, however, increased postoperative morbidity and the need for esophagogastric resection were observed for nonabsorbable mesh-reinforced cruroplasty.

Determining the need for a thoracoscopic approach to treat a giant hiatal hernia when abdominal access is poor

BACKGROUND

Giant hernias present a significant challenge for digestive surgeons. The approach taken (laparoscopic vs thoracoscopic) depends largely on the preferences and skills of each surgeon, although in most cases today the laparoscopic approach is preferred.

AIM

To determine whether patients presenting inadequate laparoscopic access to the intrathoracic hernial sac obtain poorer postoperative results than those with no such problem, in order to assess the need for a thoracoscopic approach.

METHODS

For the retrospective series of patients treated in our hospital for hiatal hernia (n = 112), we calculated the laparoscopic field of view and the working area accessible to surgical instruments, by means of preoperative imaging tests, to assess the likely outcome for cases inaccessible to laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Patients with giant hiatal hernias for whom a preoperative calculation suggested that the laparoscopic route would not access all areas of the intrathoracic sac presented higher rates of perioperative complications and recurrence during follow-up than those for whom laparoscopy was unimpeded. The difference was statistically significant. Moreover, the insertion of mesh did not improve results for the non-accessible group.

CONCLUSION

For patients with giant hiatal hernias, it is essential to conduct a preoperative evaluation of the angle of vision and the working area for surgery. When parts of the intrathoracic sac are inaccessible laparoscopically, the thoracoscopic approach should be considered.

Mesh-related complications in paraoesophageal repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Paraoesophageal hernias (PEH) have a high recurrence rate, prompting surgeons to consider the use of mesh reinforcement of the hiatus. The risks and benefits of mesh augmentation in PEH repair are debated. Mesh-related complications including migration and erosion are considered in this publication.

DESIGN

A systematic literature review of articles published between 1970 and 2019 in Medline, OVID, Embase, and Springer database was conducted, identifying case reports, case series and observational studies of PEH repair reporting mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-five case reports/series of 74 patients and 20 observational studies reporting 75 of 4200 patients with mesh complications have been included. The incidence of mesh-related erosions in this study is 0.035%. PTFE, ePTFE, composite and synthetic meshes were frequently associated with mesh erosion requiring intervention. Complete erosions are often managed endoscopically while partial erosions may require surgery and resection of the oesophagus and/or stomach.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-related complication is rare with dysphagia a common presenting feature. Mesh erosion is associated with synthetic mesh more frequently in the reported literature. A mesh registry with long-term longitudinal data would help in understanding the true incidence of mesh-related complications.

[Hiatus hernia : Standards and controversies in diagnostics and treatment]

A hiatus hernia is defined as a transdiaphragmatic protrusion/migration of the intrabdominal contents through the esophageal hiatus of the diaphragm. The classification of hiatus hernias is based on anatomical morphological differentiation (types I-IV). The leading symptoms and psychological stress vary with respect to the symptoms, e. g. reflux and compression symptoms. Gastroscopy and multichannel intraluminal impedance pH measurement are obligatory preoperative functional diagnostics. A distinction is made between frequent type I hernia (antireflux surgery), symptomatic paraesophageal, thoracic and mixed hernia types (II-IV). Surgical indications exist in symptomatic type II-IV hernias. Hiatal mesh augmentation reduces recurrences. The complication potential of synthetic meshes must be taken into account. Biological implants show no advantages.

Follow Up Data of MRI-Visible Synthetic Meshes for Reinforcement in Large Hiatal Hernia in Comparison to None-Mesh Repair-A Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Mesh augmentation for large hiatal hernia is still controversial because of high alleged risk of chronic reaction or shrinkage of mesh orifice surrounding the esophagus. The aim of this cohort study was to develop and establish an image analysis scheme, including 3D reconstruction, for MRI-visible meshes (DynaMesh®) to measure postoperative mesh shrinkage in order to observe potential complications. Methods: Between 12/2012 and 10/2016, n = 33 patients underwent surgery to correct symptomatic hiatal hernia (implantation indicated: n = 18). Intraoperative measurement of the hiatal surface area (HSA) > 5 cm2 was indication for mesh implantation. Early postoperatively, and during long-term follow-up, MRI was performed and patients filled out the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI score). Results: Follow-up rate was 76% (n = 25/33). Overall recurrence rate was 4% (1/25). No other patient showed reflux or dysphagia symptoms. Mesh related complications were not observed during follow-up period. Median GIQLI score of patients with mesh was 123 (range: 67-144), and 93 (52-141) for patients without mesh. Comparison of early and mid-term postoperative MRI for patients with mesh showed changes in mesh orifice size of 3% (corresponding to a slight increase in size of about 6 mm2) without any significant correlations with BMI, HSA, or patient age. Conclusion: We established an image analysis and 3D reconstruction scheme for MRI visible meshes in hiatal hernia repair. MRI images of normal clinical quality are sufficient for this analysis. Mesh orifice size in MRI-visible meshes does not seem to change at a clinically relevant level in the small cohort observed here. Further studies of large cohorts are necessary to establish if HSA >5 cm2 could be a suitable measure for indication of mesh implantation.

Autologous Dermis Graft Implantation: A Novel Approach to Reinforcement in Giant Hiatal Hernias

Objectives

Nonreinforced tensile repair of giant hiatal hernias is susceptible to recurrence, and the role of mesh graft implantation remains controversial. Creating a new and viable choice without the use of high-cost biological allografts is desirable. This study presents the application of dermis graft reinforcement, a cost-efficient, easily adaptable alternative, in graft reinforcement of giant hiatal hernia repairs.

Methods

A 62-year-old female patient with recurrent giant hiatal hernia (9 × 11 cm) and upside down stomach, immediately following the Belsey repair done in another department, was selected for the pilot procedure. The standard three-stitch nonabsorbable reconstruction of diaphragmatic crura was undertaken via laparoscopic approach. A 12 × 6 cm dermis autograft was harvested from the loose abdominal skin. “U” figure onlay reinforcement of diaphragm closure was secured with titanium staples. The procedure was completed with a standard Dor fundoplication. One- and seven-month follow-ups were conducted.

Results

No short-term postoperative complications were observed. One-month follow-up showed normal anatomical location of abdominal viscera on computed tomography imaging. High-resolution manometry showed normal lower esophageal sphincter pressure. Preoperative abdominal complaints were resolved. Procedural costs were lower than the average cost following mesh graft reinforcement.

Conclusion

Dermis graft reinforcement is a cheap, easily adaptable procedure in the repair of giant hiatal hernias, even in the setting of laparoscopic reoperative procedure.

International guidelines for groin hernia management

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

METHODS

An expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group's first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as "strong" (recommendations) or "weak" (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term "should" refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores. The risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with "watchful waiting" since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment should be tailored to the surgeon's expertise, patient- and hernia-related characteristics and local/national resources. Furthermore, patient health-related, life style and social factors should all influence the shared decision-making process leading up to hernia management. Mesh repair is recommended as first choice, either by an open procedure or a laparo-endoscopic repair technique. One standard repair technique for all groin hernias does not exist. It is recommended that surgeons/surgical services provide both anterior and posterior approach options. Lichtenstein and laparo-endoscopic repair are best evaluated. Many other techniques need further evaluation. Provided that resources and expertise are available, laparo-endoscopic techniques have faster recovery times, lower chronic pain risk and are cost effective. There is discussion concerning laparo-endoscopic management of potential bilateral hernias (occult hernia issue). After patient consent, during TAPP, the contra-lateral side should be inspected. This is not suggested during unilateral TEP repair. After appropriate discussions with patients concerning results tissue repair (first choice is the Shouldice technique) can be offered. Day surgery is recommended for the majority of groin hernia repair provided aftercare is organized. Surgeons should be aware of the intrinsic characteristics of the meshes they use. Use of so-called low-weight mesh may have slight short-term benefits like reduced postoperative pain and shorter convalescence, but are not associated with better longer-term outcomes like recurrence and chronic pain. Mesh selection on weight alone is not recommended. The incidence of erosion seems higher with plug versus flat mesh. It is suggested not to use plug repair techniques. The use of other implants to replace the standard flat mesh in the Lichtenstein technique is currently not recommended. In almost all cases, mesh fixation in TEP is unnecessary. In both TEP and TAPP it is recommended to fix mesh in M3 hernias (large medial) to reduce recurrence risk. Antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in low-risk environments is not recommended in open surgery. In laparo-endoscopic repair it is never recommended. Local anesthesia in open repair has many advantages, and its use is recommended provided the surgeon is experienced in this technique. General anesthesia is suggested over regional in patients aged 65 and older as it might be associated with fewer complications like myocardial infarction, pneumonia and thromboembolism. Perioperative field blocks and/or subfascial/subcutaneous infiltrations are recommended in all cases of open repair. Patients are recommended to resume normal activities without restrictions as soon as they feel comfortable. Provided expertise is available, it is suggested that women with groin hernias undergo laparo-endoscopic repair in order to decrease the risk of chronic pain and avoid missing a femoral hernia. Watchful waiting is suggested in pregnant women as groin swelling most often consists of self-limited round ligament varicosities. Timely mesh repair by a laparo-endoscopic approach is suggested for femoral hernias provided expertise is available. All complications of groin hernia management are discussed in an extensive chapter on the topic. Overall, the incidence of clinically significant chronic pain is in the 10-12% range, decreasing over time. Debilitating chronic pain affecting normal daily activities or work ranges from 0.5 to 6%. Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is defined as bothersome moderate pain impacting daily activities lasting at least 3 months postoperatively and decreasing over time. CPIP risk factors include: young age, female gender, high preoperative pain, early high postoperative pain, recurrent hernia and open repair. For CPIP the focus should be on nerve recognition in open surgery and, in selected cases, prophylactic pragmatic nerve resection (planned resection is not suggested). It is suggested that CPIP management be performed by multi-disciplinary teams. It is also suggested that CPIP be managed by a combination of pharmacological and interventional measures and, if this is unsuccessful, followed by, in selected cases (triple) neurectomy and (in selected cases) mesh removal. For recurrent hernia after anterior repair, posterior repair is recommended. If recurrence occurs after a posterior repair, an anterior repair is recommended. After a failed anterior and posterior approach, management by a specialist hernia surgeon is recommended. Risk factors for hernia incarceration/strangulation include: female gender, femoral hernia and a history of hospitalization related to groin hernia. It is suggested that treatment of emergencies be tailored according to patient- and hernia-related factors, local expertise and resources. Learning curves vary between different techniques. Probably about 100 supervised laparo-endoscopic repairs are needed to achieve the same results as open mesh surgery like Lichtenstein. It is suggested that case load per surgeon is more important than center volume. It is recommended that minimum requirements be developed to certify individuals as expert hernia surgeon. The same is true for the designation "Hernia Center". From a cost-effectiveness perspective, day-case laparoscopic IH repair with minimal use of disposables is recommended. The development and implementation of national groin hernia registries in every country (or region, in the case of small country populations) is suggested. They should include patient follow-up data and account for local healthcare structures. A dissemination and implementation plan of the guidelines will be developed by global (HerniaSurge), regional (international societies) and local (national chapters) initiatives through internet websites, social media and smartphone apps. An overarching plan to improve access to safe IH surgery in low-resource settings (LRSs) is needed. It is suggested that this plan contains simple guidelines and a sustainability strategy, independent of international aid. It is suggested that in LRSs the focus be on performing high-volume Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia using low-cost mesh. Three chapters discuss future research, guidelines for general practitioners and guidelines for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The HerniaSurge Group has developed these extensive and inclusive guidelines for the management of adult groin hernia patients. It is hoped that they will lead to better outcomes for groin hernia patients wherever they live. More knowledge, better training, national audit and specialization in groin hernia management will standardize care for these patients, lead to more effective and efficient healthcare and provide direction for future research.

Late esophageal wall injury after mesh repair for large esophageal hiatal hernia: a case report

Background

Plication of an esophageal hiatus during surgery for esophageal hiatal hernia is a common practice; however, a mesh may be used if the hiatus is markedly enlarged. Recently, various late complications occurring as a result of mesh-induced esophageal and/or gastric wall injuries have been reported.

Case presentation

A 71-year-old woman presented at a neighborhood clinic in November 2010 with chief complaints of respiratory distress on exertion and heartburn. She was diagnosed as having a large esophageal hiatal hernia and was treated at our hospital using a laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication with mesh repair of the esophageal hiatus. Two years and 1 month after the operation, the patient complained of a bowel obstruction. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed that part of the mesh had extruded into the esophageal lumen, resulting in ulceration and stricture of the esophageal wall. Endoscopic balloon dilatation failed to improve the esophageal stricture. In July 2012, the patient underwent a lower esophagectomy with proximal gastrectomy and was discharged on the 25th hospital day.

Conclusions

We experienced a rare case requiring surgical treatment for a mesh-induced esophageal wall injury after surgery for a giant esophageal hiatal hernia. The selection of a soft, durable mash and its firm securement at a position distant from the gastrointestinal wall may be important to avoid late esophageal wall injury.

From intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair to preperitoneal onlay mesh repair

Laparoscopic repair for ventral and incisional hernias was first reported in the early 1990s. It uses intraperitoneal only mesh placement to achieve a tension-free repair of the hernia. However, in recent years, there has been greater concern about long-term complication involving intraperitoneal mesh placement. Many case reports and case series have found evidence of mesh adhesion, mesh fistulation, and mesh migration into hollow organs including the esophagus, small bowel, and large bowel, resulting in various major acute abdominal events. Subsequent management of these complications may require major surgery that is technically demanding and difficult; in such cases, laparotomy and bowel resection have often been performed. Because of these significant, but not common, adverse events, many surgeons favor open sublay repair for ventral and incisional hernias. Investigators are therefore searching for a laparoscopic approach for ventral and incisional hernias that might overcome the mesh-induced visceral complications seen after intraperitoneal only mesh placement repair. Laparoscopic preperitoneal onlay mesh is one such approach. This article will explore the fundamental of intraperitoneal only mesh placement and its problems, the currently available peritoneal visceral-compatible meshes, and upcoming developments in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. The technical details of preperitoneal onlay mesh, as well as its potential advantages and disadvantages, will also be discussed.

Intraluminal Mesh Migration After Ventral Hernia Repair

Hernia repair is the most commonly performed operation by general surgery. We present a case of intraluminal mesh migration into the transverse colon and distal ileum after ventral hernia repair. An ileo-transverse anastomosis was performed after the mesh was removed and the abdominal wall was reconstructed. This case demonstrates a rare but possible complication after hernia repair with mesh. In these patients, physicians should keep a high index of suspicion for mesh migration when all other causes of GI symptoms have been ruled out.

Repair of Small and Medium Size Umbilical Hernias with the “Proceed Ventral Patch” in the Preperitoneal Position

Small- and medium-sized ventral hernias including umbilical hernias can be repaired using prosthetic patches placed in the peritoneum. However, bowel-associated complications secondary to intraperitoneally placed hernia patches have been reported. Herein, we report the outcome of small and medium umbilical hernia closure with prosthetic hernia patches in the preperitoneal space. Prospectively collected data of patients undergoing repair of small- and medium-sized umbilical hernias with the proceed ventral patch in a primary care hospital in Germany was retrospectively analyzed. A total of 39 cases, including 11 female and 28 male patients, were managed with prosthetic patches in the preperitoneal position. Small-sized patches were implantated in 16 cases, whereas medium-sized patches were used in 23 cases. The median duration of surgery was 40 minutes. The median length of hospital stay was four days. Four minor complications were recorded (10.3%) and the rate of recurrence was 2.6 per cent within a follow-up period of up to 30 months. Small and medium size umbilical hernias can be effectively closed with prosthetic patches placed in the preperitoneal space without risk of serious bowel associated complications.

Laparoscopic treatment of type III and IV hiatal hernia - authors' experience

Introduction

There are four types of hiatal hernias, and diagnosis is established on the basis of gastroscopy in the majority of cases. Type III represents a mixed type in which the abdominal esophagus as well as the gastric cardia and fundus protrude into the thorax through the pathologically widened esophageal hiatus. Type IV, the so-called upside down stomach, can be considered an evolutionary form of type III, and refers to herniation of nearly the whole stomach (except for the cardia and pylorus) into the thorax. Types III and IV of hiatal hernias represent a group of rare diaphragmatic defects; thus, most centers do not possess considerable experience in their treatment. Frequently, laparoscopic treatment is implemented, although, according to some authors, conversion to laparotomy, thoracotomy, or thoracolaparotomy is necessary in selected cases.

Aim

To analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic treatment of the largest hiatal hernias, i.e. type III and IV hernias.

Material and methods

A total of 25 patients diagnosed with type III and IV hiatal hernia were included in further analysis.

Results

As many as 19 out of 25 patients (76%) assessed the outcome of the surgery as evidently positive and reported marked improvement in the quality of life.

Conclusions

The laparoscopic technique constitutes an excellent and safe method of repair of even the most complex defects in the esophageal hiatus. Therefore, the minimally invasive technique combined with an anti-reflux procedure should be the method of choice in patients with type III and IV hernia.

Dual-sided composite mesh repair of hiatal hernia: Our experience and a review of the Chinese literature

AIM: To summarize our experience in the application of Crurasoft^® for antireflux surgery and hiatal hernia (HH) repair and to introduce the work of Chinese doctors on this topic.

METHODS: Twenty-one patients underwent HH repair with Crurasoft^® reinforcement. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and HH-related symptoms including heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain, dysphagia, and abdominal pain were evaluated preoperatively and 6 mo postoperatively. A patient survey was conducted by phone by one of the authors. Patients were asked about “recurrent reflux or heartburn” and “dysphagia”. An internet-based Chinese literature search in this field was also performed. Data extracted from each study included: number of patients treated, hernia size, hiatorrhaphy, antireflux surgery, follow-up period, recurrence rate, and complications (especially dysphagia).

RESULTS: There were 8 type I, 10 type II and 3 type III HHs in this group. Mean operative time was 119.29 min (range 80-175 min). Intraoperatively, length and width of the hiatal orifice were measured, (4.33 ± 0.84 and 2.85 ± 0.85 cm, respectively). Thirteen and eight Nissen and Toupet fundoplications were performed, respectively. The intraoperative complication rate was 9.52%. Despite dysphagia, GERD-related symptoms improved significantly compared with those before surgery. The recurrence rate was 0% during the 6-mo follow-up period, and long-term follow-up disclosed a recurrence rate of 4.76% with a mean period of 16.28 mo. Eight patients developed new-onset dysphagia. The Chinese literature review identified 12 papers with 213 patients. The overall recurrence rate was 1.88%. There was no esophageal erosion and the rate of dysphagia ranged from 0% to 24%.

CONCLUSION: The use of Crurasoft^® mesh for HH repair results in satisfactory symptom control with a low recurrence rate. Postoperative dysphagia continues to be an issue, and requires more research to reduce its incidence.

The safety of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernia

BACKGROUND

Biologic mesh is widely used for repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias. Recently, there have been reports of complications after its implantation. We studied the course of a large group of patients who had undergone hiatal hernia repair with use of biologic mesh to determine the rate of immediate and late complications related to its use.

METHODS

All patients who had biologic mesh placed at the hiatus and who had been followed for at least 1 year were included. Perioperative data were reviewed, and a questionnaire was administered, designed to identify symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux, other symptoms such as dysphagia, and all other operative or endoscopic interventions that occurred after mesh implantation. In addition, postoperative radiologic and endoscopic studies were reviewed to assess signs of complications related to use of mesh.

RESULTS

There were 126 patients eligible for the study. We were able to contact 73 of these patients, at median follow-up of 45 months. No mesh-related complications were found. The frequency and severity of heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia improved significantly compared with preoperative values, and 89% of the patients reported good to excellent results in terms of overall satisfaction. Six patients recorded worsening of dysphagia postoperatively, but after careful work-up and review of each individual case, no case seemed to be directly related to the mesh. No erosions, strictures, or other complications directly related to use of mesh were found. One patient required reoperation due to hiatal hernia recurrence with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias appears safe. There were no major complications related to the mesh, and overall satisfaction with the operation was very good.

Complications of mesh devices for intraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair: a word of caution

Several mesh devices for the treatment of umbilical and other small ventral hernias have become available in recent years. These meshes have a dual layer consisting of a permanent or temporary barrier against adhesion formation between the viscera and the intraperitoneally exposed part of the mesh. We have seen several patients with serious late complications of these meshes placed intraperitoneally. Some of these patients needed small bowel resection and mesh removal. Others developed a recurrence because of improper deployment of the mesh in the intraperitoneal position. We think that, if preperitoneal deployment of such mesh devices is possible, this should be the preferred position, notwithstanding the fact that these meshes have a dual layer. There is a complete lack of convincing data on these mesh devices in the medical literature. No long-term data have been published, and, for three of the four mesh devices available, no publications on their use in humans were found. We think that surgeons adopting innovative mesh devices should register and follow their patients prospectively, at least until there are enough published studies with sufficiently large patient samples, acceptable follow up times, and favourable outcomes.