Vacuum Assisted Closure® therapy in the treatment of mesh infection after hernia repair

Mesh Infection After Hernia Repair and Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Surgical mesh infection (SMI) after abdominal wall hernia repair (AWHR) is a challenging and highly debated clinical problem with no current consensus. The purpose of this review was to analyze the literature about the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in the management of the conservative treatment of SMI and report results about infected mesh salvage.

METHODS

A systematic review of EMBASE and PUBMED was performed describing the use of NPWT in patients with SMI following AWHR. Reviewed articles evaluating data about the association between clinical, demographic, analytic and surgical characteristics about SMI after AWHR were analyzed. The high heterogeneity of these studies did not allow a meta-analysis of outcomes.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 33 studies from PubMed, and 16 studies from EMBASE. NPWT was performed in 230 patients across 9 studies being achieved the mesh salvage in 196 (85.2%). Of these 230 cases, 46% were polypropylene (PPL), 9.9% polyester (PE), 16.8% polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), 4% biologic and 10.2% composite mesh (PPL and PTFE). Infected mesh location was onlay (43%), retromuscular (22%), preperitoneal (19%), intraperitoneal (10%) and between the oblique muscles (5%). The better option on salvageability with the use of NPWT was the combination of macroporous PPL mesh in an extraperitoneal position (19.2% onlay, 23.3% preperitoneal, 48.8% retromuscular).

CONCLUSION

NPWT is a sufficient approach to treat SMI following AWHR. In most cases, infected prostheses can be salvaged with this management. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to confirm our analysis results.

[Strategy for maintaining mesh implants in infected postoperative wounds of anterior abdominal wall]

Treatment of infected mesh implants of anterior abdominal wall is a complex problem in the absence of a unified approach. Traditional method involving surgical debridement of the site of infection with removal of mesh implant is associated with many risks and potential complications. This review is devoted to peculiarities of paraprosthetic infection, possible preserving the implant and methods of treating wound infection avoiding removal of endoprosthesis. Requirements for preservation of mesh implant and key role of vacuum therapy are emphasized.

The negative pressure wound therapy may salvage the infected mesh following open incisional hernia repair

Background

s: Incisional hernias may occur in 10–25% of patients undergoing laparotomy. In cases of a surgical site infection (SSI) after incisional hernia repair (IHR) secondary operative intervention with mesh removal are often needed. There is only minimal data available in the literature regarding the treatment of a wound infection with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Conducting the study at hand, we aimed to provide more evidence on this topic.

Methods

From April to June 2020 a monocentric retrospective study has been performed. Patients who underwent NPWT due to a SSI with mesh involvement following open IHR from 2007 to 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was the mesh removal rate in the end of NPWT. Main secondary endpoints were the duration of NPWT and the amount of NPWT procedures.

Results

The data of 30 patients were extracted. The average age was 65.9 years (9.9). A total of 13 individuals were male and 17 females. The BMI was on average 31.1 kg/m² (4.9). All patients received a polypropylene mesh. The average duration of NPWT was 31.3 days (22.1). The first wound revision with initiation of a NPWT was conducted on average 31.1 days (34.0) after IHR. The average amount of NPWT procedures was 8.3 (7.2). In 5 of 30 patients (16.6%) the mesh was removed (Open sublay group n = 4 (36.34%) vs. open onlay group n = 1 (5.26%), p = 0.047).

Conclusion

In cases of SSI following IHR the NPWT may facilitate mesh selvage. Further trials with a larger sample size are mandatory to confirm our hypothesis.

•

As one of a main complication SSI may occur in up to 30% of cases following incisional hernia repair.

•

The mesh is often removed in cases of a SSI.

•

NPWT may salvage mesh removal in cases of mesh infection.

Management of Infected Mesh After Abdominal Hernia Repair: Systematic Review and Single-Institution Experience

BACKGROUND

Mesh infection after abdominal hernia repair is a devastating complication that affects general and plastic surgeons alike. The purpose of this study was 3-fold: (1) to determine current evidence for treatment of infected abdominal wall mesh via systematic review of literature, (2) to analyze our single-institution experience with treatment of infected mesh patients, and (3) to establish a framework for how to approach this complex clinical problem.

METHODS

Literature search was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, followed by single-institution retrospective analysis of infected mesh patients.

RESULTS

A total of 3565 abstracts and 92 full-text articles were reviewed. For qualitative and quantitative assessment, articles were subdivided on the basis of treatment approach: "conservative management," "excision of mesh with primary closure," "single-stage reconstruction," "immediate staged repair," and "repair in contaminated field." Evidence for each treatment approach is presented. At our institution, most patients (40/43) were treated by excision of infected mesh and single-stage reconstruction with biologic mesh. When the mesh was placed in a retrorectus or underlay fashion, 21.4% rate of hernia recurrence was achieved. Bridged repairs were highly prone to recurrence (88.9%; P = 0.001), but the bridging biologic mesh seemed to maintain domain and potentially contribute to a more effective repair in the future. Of the patients who underwent additional ("secondary") repairs after recurrence, 75% were eventually able to achieve "hernia-free" state.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reviews the literature and our single-institution experience regarding treatment of infected abdominal wall mesh. Framework is developed for how to approach this complex clinical problem.

"Complex abdominal wall" management: evidence-based guidelines of the Italian Consensus Conference

To date, there is no shared consensus on a definition of a complex abdominal wall in elective surgery and in the emergency, on indications, technical details, complications, and follow-up. The purpose of the conference was to lay the foundations for a homogeneous approach to the complex abdominal wall with the primary intent being to attain the following objectives: (1) to develop evidence-based recommendations to define “complex abdominal wall”; (2) indications in emergency and in elective cases; (3) management of “complex abdominal wall”; (4) techniques for temporary abdominal closure. The decompressive laparostomy should be considered in a case of abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with critical conditions or after the failure of a medical treatment or less invasive methods. In the second one, beyond different mechanism, patients with surgical emergency diseases might reach the same pathophysiological end point of trauma patients where a preventive “open abdomen” might be indicated (a temporary abdominal closure: in the case of a non-infected field, the Wittmann patch and the NPWT had the best outcome followed by meshes; in the case of an infected field, NPWT techniques seem to be the preferred). The second priority is to create optimal both general as local conditions for healing: the right antimicrobial management, feeding—preferably by the enteral route—and managing correctly the open abdomen wall. The use of a mesh appears to be—if and when possible—the gold standard. There is a lot of enthusiasm about biological meshes. But the actual evidence supports their use only in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields but above all, to reduce the higher rate of recurrences, the wall anatomy and function should be restored in the midline, with or without component separation technique. On the other site has not to be neglected that the use of monofilament and macroporous non-absorbable meshes, in extraperitoneal position, in the setting of the complex abdomen with contamination, seems to have a cost effective role too. The idea of this consensus conference was mainly to try to bring order in the so copious, but not always so “evident” literature utilizing and exchanging the expertise of different specialists.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Treatment of Mesh Infection After Abdominal Surgery: Long-Term Results and Patient-Reported Outcome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment of synthetic mesh infections has previously often resulted in mesh explantation. Negative pressure wound therapy has been used in these situations with encouraging results. The aims of this study were to evaluate wound healing, mesh preservation, and patient-reported outcome after negative pressure wound therapy of mesh infections.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medical records of patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy for mesh infection and age-matched mesh-operated controls without postoperative complications were scrutinized in a retrospective study. An abdominal wall complaints questionnaire was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome.

RESULTS

Of 722 mesh operations performed 2005-2012, negative pressure wound therapy was used for treating postoperative mesh infections in 48 patients. A total of 48 age-matched controls were recruited from patients without wound complications. No differences were found between groups regarding preoperative characteristics. The following peroperative characteristics were significantly more frequent in the negative pressure wound therapy group: emergency operation, dirty/infected surgical field, surgical techniques other than laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair, implantation of more than one mesh, larger mesh size, longer duration of surgery, and mesh not completely covered with anterior rectus fascia. The entire mesh was salvaged in 92%, while four meshes were partly excised. Wounds healed in 88% after a median of 110 (range 3-649) days. In total, 85% in the negative pressure wound therapy group and 75% in the control group answered the questionnaire. There were no significant differences regarding pain, other abdominal wall symptoms, and satisfaction with the final result in favor of the controls.

CONCLUSION

No mesh had to be explanted and wound healing was achieved in the majority of patients when negative pressure wound therapy was used for treatment of mesh infections. However, time to healing was long, and numerous procedures were sometimes needed. Positive long-term outcome was more frequently reported among controls.

Postoperative Mesh Infection-Still a Concern in Laparoscopic Era

Introduction of synthetic mesh was a landmark breakthrough in the management of hernia repair and has significantly reduced recurrence rates. But in addition to the benefits, some more problems have come in picture major being 'mesh infection'. Prolene mesh has shown promise when used in abdominal and inguinal hernia repair, especially when used in planned surgeries. This material, derived from monofilament polypropelene, is found to be biologically inert in almost every person. Being a foreign material, a slightest breach in asepsis can lead to favourable environment for bacterial proliferation and form a 'biofilm'. This phenomenon especially after laparoscopic surgeries gives rise to chronic discharging sinus at the port site, abscess formation around mesh and even sepsis. It appears that laparoscopic hernia repair is a promising method but having chances of mesh infection owing to difficult approach and lack of uniformity in sterilization of laparoscopic instruments. Slightest breach in sterility or protocols might lead to such a large ventral wall sinus, increasing morbidity and cost of treatment. Treatment of infected mesh is possible by local debridement, irrigation, mesh removal and systemic antibiotics culminating in increased morbidity over duration of disease, but still it would be worth emphasizing-'Prevention is better than cure'.

Role of negative pressure wound therapy in healing of diabetic foot ulcers

Introduction:

Foot disorders such as ulceration, infection and gangrene are the most common, complex and costly sequelae of diabetes mellitus.[1–3] Even for the most superficial wounds, treatment is often difficult with poor healing responses and high rates of complications. The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of ulcer healing with the negative pressure dressing technique to conventional moist dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted on 30 patients, which were divided into two groups. One group received negative pressure dressing while other group received conventional saline moistened gauze dressing. Results were compared for rate of wound healing.

Results:

There was a statistically significant difference in the rate of appearance of granulation tissue between the two groups; with granulation tissue appearing earlier in the study group. The study group promised a better outcome (80% complete responders) as compared to the control group (60% complete responders).

Conclusions:

Negative pressure wound therapy has a definitive role in healing of diabetic foot ulcers.

[Management of mesh-related infections]

Infections of an implanted hernia mesh are a major challenge. The incidence of mesh infections after incisional hernia repair is about 1% for endoscopic techniques and can be more than 15% in open techniques. Intraoperative mesh contamination is considered to be the primary cause. All woven or knitted hernia meshes have recesses where bacteria may adhere and establish colonies. The bacterial spectrum for mesh infection includes skin pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA), Streptococcus spp., as well as E. coli, Enterococcus and Mycobacteria. The therapy approach needs to be tailored to the morphological findings and the treatment for uncomplicated phlegmon is broad spectrum antibiotic therapy. If there is encapsulated fluid accumulation, CT-controlled drainage and daily infusion of antiseptics via the drain is a good option. For dermal necrosis, mesh fistula, exposed mesh or enterocutaneous fistula, a precise CT evaluation is necessary to tailor the operation. Vacuum systems are gaining increased acceptance in conditioning the local findings. For most patients the therapeutic concept will be based on individual decisions. If parts of a formerly infected mesh remain in the patient, a lifelong follow-up is necessary.

[Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) of pyothorax with bronchial fistula following radiotherapy, pneumonectomy and thoraco-myoplasty]

Pulmonary fibrosis and impeding gangrene as complications of radiotherapy and chemotherapy developed in a patient who previously underwent right upper lobectomy. Following completion pneumonectomy, bronchopleural fistula and consecutive thoracic empyema formed. This case presentation is to demonstrate the vicious circle of severe complications following oncological treatment. The role of vacuum assisted closure and other management options are discussed which resulted in full recovery of the patient after three years finally.

Use of negative pressure wound therapy in the management of infected abdominal wounds containing mesh: an analysis of outcomes

The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) using reticulated open-cell foam (ROCF) in the adjunctive management of abdominal wounds with exposed and known infected synthetic mesh. A non randomised, retrospective review of medical records for 21 consecutive patients with infected abdominal wounds treated with NPWT was conducted. All abdominal wounds contained exposed synthetic mesh [composite, polypropylene (PP), or knitted polyglactin 910 (PG) mesh]. Demographic and bacteriological data, wound history, pre-NPWT and comparative post-NPWT, operative procedures and complications, hospital length of stay (LOS) and wound healing outcomes were all analysed. Primary endpoints measured were (1) hospital LOS prior to initiation of NPWT, (2) total time on NPWT, (3) hospital LOS from NPWT initiation to discharge and (4) wound closure status at discharge. A total of 21 patients with abdominal wounds with exposed, infected mesh were treated with NPWT. Aetiology of the wounds was ventral hernia repair (n = 11) and acute abdominal wall defect (n = 10). Prior to NPWT initiation, the mean hospital LOS for the composite, PP and PG meshes were 76 days (range: 21-171 days), 51 days (range: 32-62 days) and 19 days (range: 12-39 days), respectively. The mean hospital LOS following initiation of NPWT for wounds with exposed composite, PP and PG mesh were 28, 31 and 32 days, respectively. Eighteen of the 21 wounds (86%) reached full closure after a mean time of 26 days of NPWT and a mean hospital LOS of 30 days postinitiation of NPWT. Three wounds, all with composite mesh left in situ, did not reach full closure, although all exhibited decreased wound dimensions, granulating beds and decreased surface area exposure of mesh. During NPWT/ROCF, one hypoalbuminemic patient with exposed PP mesh developed an enterocutaneous fistula over a prior enterotomy site. This patient subsequently underwent total mesh extraction, takedown of the fistula and PP mesh replacement followed by reinstitution of NPWT and flap closure. In addition to appropriate systemic antibiotics and nutritional optimisation, the adjunctive use of NPWT resulted in successful closure of 86% of infected abdominal wounds with exposed prosthetic mesh. Patient hospital LOS (except those with PG mesh), operative procedures and readmissions were decreased during NPWT compared with treatment prior to NPWT. Future multi-site prospective, controlled studies would provide a strong evidence base from which treatment decisions could be made in the management of these challenging and costly cases.

Abdominal wall infections with in situ mesh

BACKGROUND

Synthetic mesh is used commonly in the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Infection at the surgical site where mesh is present poses a formidable clinical problem.

METHODS

The current surgical literature was reviewed to formulate accepted approaches to the management of hernia repairs with infected mesh.

RESULTS

Prevention of mesh infection is best achieved by judicious use of systemic antibiotics. Topical antibiotics often are used without convincing evidence to support their value. Laparoscopic repairs have lower infection rates than open repairs. Evidence is lacking to support lower rates of infection with mesh of specific composition or with antibacterial agents that coat the mesh. The diagnosis of mesh infection is principally a clinical one. Repairs of infected mesh usually necessitate antibiotics and removal of the foreign material. Clinical judgment is required for attempts at salvaging portions of the mesh. Component separation or biological materials may be used in those circumstances for hernia repair in which large defects are created by removal of the infected synthetic material.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevention of mesh infections remains the best strategy. Clinical judgment is essential in determining the degree of mesh removal. Continued clinical studies are necessary to improve the outcomes of established mesh infection in hernia repairs.