Postoperative perineal hernia repair: what is the evidence?

The present study determined the characteristics of perineal hernia treatment in the literature, and the incidence of postoperative recurrence was stratified according to repair techniques. A systematic search of the available literature on the treatment of postoperative perineal hernias was performed using a major database. The types of repair techniques and outcome were entered into an electronic database and a pooled analysis was performed. A total of 213 cases of postoperative perineal hernia repair were collected from 20 relevant articles in the literature after excluding case reports (n < 3). Synthetic mesh was the material used most frequently for perineal hernia repair (55.9%). The most frequently used approach in perineal hernia repair was the perineal approach (56.5%). The recurrence rate was highest with the use of biological mesh (40.4%) and the perineal approach (35.6%). The recurrence rate was lowest in the combined abdominal & perineal approach (0%), followed by the abdominal approach (8.8%) and the laparoscopic approach (11.8%). A number of different repair techniques have been described in the literature. The use of synthetic mesh via a combined abdominal-perineal approach or intraabdominal/laparoscopic approach was shown to be associated with a reduced postoperative recurrence rate.

A three layered repair of a large perineal hernia: case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

A symptomatic perineal hernia is an uncommon complication after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Repairs of such hernias can be achieved by usage of autologous flaps, synthetic mesh, or biologic mesh, which reduce bowel adhesions. Studies have shown that prophylactic repair of the pelvic floor with biologic mesh during APR, can reduce the incidence of perineal hernia.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 71-year-old woman, after extended APR (eAPR) with primary closure of pelvic floor with absorbable mesh, presented to our outpatient clinic with a symptomatic, extensive perineal hernia. The patient underwent repair of the perineal hernia using a synthetic mesh and a bilateral gluteal flap procedure. In post operative care, signs of surgical site infection and a fluid collection demonstrated in a CT-scan, compelled a surgical drainage. A clear fluid negative for bacterial growth was drained and antibiotic treatment was initiated. After drainage, surgical site showed signs of significant improvement and patient was eventually discharged.

CONCLUSION

The rise in reported incidence of perineal hernia after eAPR coupled with the scarcity of data regarding the preferable repair technique suggests that there is a significant need for further prospective comparative studies.

Synthetic mesh versus biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure: a randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication after loop-ileostomy closure, rationalizing hernia prevention. Biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic meshes in fear of mesh related complications. However, previous studies on meshes does not support this practice. The aim of Preloop trial was to study the safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure.

METHODS

The Preloop randomized, feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 until November 2021 in four hospitals in Finland. The trial enrolled 102 patients with temporary loop-ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer. The study patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (Permacol™, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at ileostomy closure. The primary end points were rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up and incisional hernia rate during 10 months' follow-up period.

RESULTS

Of 102 patients randomized, 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 (97%) patients were evaluated. In the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI. Uneventful recovery was reported in 38/46 (86%) in SM group. In the BM group, 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p > 0.90) and in 43/48 (90%) uneventful recovery was reported. The mesh was removed from one patient in both groups (p > 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Both a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in terms of SSI after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficacy will be published after the study patients have completed the 10 months' follow-up.

Novel "starburst" mesh configuration for paraesophageal and recurrent hiatal hernia repair: comparison with keyhole mesh configuration

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists over the use of mesh, its type and configuration in repair of hiatal hernia. We have used biological mesh for large or recurrent hiatal hernias. We have developed a mesh configuration to better enhance the tensile strength of the hiatus by folding the mesh over the edge of the hiatus-entitled the "starburst" configuration. We report our experience with the starburst configuration, comparing it to our results with the keyhole configuration.

METHODS

Medical records of all patients undergoing either the keyhole or starburst mesh configuration hiatal hernia repair were reviewed between 2017 and 2021. Data gathered included age, sex, type of hernia (sliding, paraesophageal, or recurrent), fundoplication type (none, Nissen, Toupet, Dor, Collis-Nissen, Collis-Toupet, or magnetic sphincter augmentation [MSA]), 30-day complications, and long-term outcomes (hiatal hernia recurrence, reflux-symptom recurrence, dysphagia, dilations, reoperations).

RESULTS

From 7/2017 to 8/2019, 51 cases using the keyhole mesh were completed. Sliding hiatal hernia comprised 4%, paraesophageal hernia (PEH) 64% and recurrent hiatal hernia (RHH) 34% of cases. Distribution of fundoplication type: 2% none, 41% Nissen, 41% Toupet, 8% Dor, 2% Collis-Nissen, and 6% Collis-Toupet. 30-day complication rate 31%. Long-term outcomes: recurrent hiatal hernia 16%, dysphagia 12%, dysphagia requiring dilation(s) 10%, recurrent GERD symptoms 4%, and reoperation 14%. From 10/2020 to 8/2021, 58 cases using the starburst configuration were completed. PEH comprised 60% and RHH 40%. Distribution of fundoplication type: 10% none, 40% Nissen, 43% Toupet, 5% MSA, 2% Collis-Toupet. 30-day complication rate 16%. Long-term outcomes: recurrent hiatal hernia 19%, dysphagia 14%, dilations 5%, recurrent GERD symptoms 9%, and reoperations 3%.

CONCLUSION

The starburst mesh configuration compares favorably with the keyhole configuration with respect to postoperative dysphagia, need for esophageal dilation, and GERD symptom recurrence, with similar recurrence rates. We are continuing to further refine this technique and study the long-term outcomes.

Comparison of outcomes of ventral hernia repair using different meshes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate potential differences in patient outcomes when different meshes, especially biological meshes, were used for ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were searched for studies comparing biological meshes with biological or synthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair. The outcomes were hernia recurrence rate, surgical site infection, and seroma. We performed a two-step network meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of several biological meshes: non-cross-linked human acellular dermal matrix (NCHADM), non-cross-linked porcine ADM (NCPADM), non-cross-linked bovine ADM (NCBADM), cross-linked porcine ADM (CPADM), and porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS).

RESULTS

From 6304 publications, 23 studies involving 2603 patients were finally included. We found no differences between meshes in recurrence at 1-year follow-up and in surgical site infection rate. NCBADM was associated with the lowest recurrence rate and the lowest surgical site infection rate. NCHADM implantation was associated with the lowest rate of seroma. PSIS was associated with a higher risk of seroma than NCHADM (pooled risk ratio 3.89, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.39) and NCPADM (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.29-9.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Our network meta-analysis found no differences in recurrence rate or surgical site infection among different biological meshes. The incidence of postoperative seroma was higher with PSIS than with acellular dermal matrices. We observed large heterogeneity in the studies of ventral hernia repair using biological meshes, and, therefore, well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed.

PROPHYlactic Implantation of BIOlogic Mesh in peritonitis (PROPHYBIOM): a prospective multicentric randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency surgery for peritonitis are at increased risk of abdominal wall-related complications. In patients with peritonitis, the risk of incisional hernia (IH) is extremely elevated. The evaluation of quality of life of patients with incisional hernia showed lower mean scores on physical components of health-related quality of life and body image. Furthermore, the arise of a post-operative abdominal wall complication (i.e., wound dehiscence, evisceration and IH) greatly increases morbidity and mortality rates and prolongs the hospitalization.

METHODS

The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the use of a swine dermal collagen prosthesis implanted preperitoneally as a prophylactic procedure in urgency/emergency setting against abdominal wall complications in patients operated with contaminated/infected field in peritonitis. The sample size was defined in 90 patients divided in two arms (prosthesis positioning versus normal wall abdominal closure). The follow-up will be performed at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. The percentage of incisional hernias, wound infections, and adverse events will be investigated by physical examination and ultrasound.

DISCUSSION

The objective is to evaluate the possibility to reduce the incisional hernia rate in patients undergoing urgent/emergent laparotomy in contaminated/infected field with peritonitis by using swine dermal collagen prosthesis preperitoneal positioning as a prophylactic procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04681326. Registered (retrospectively after first patient recruited) on 23 December 2020.

Mesh safety in pelvic surgery: Our experience and outcome of biological mesh used in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) continues to be a popular treatment option for rectal prolapse, obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence and rectoceles. In recent years there have been concerns regarding the safety of mesh placements in the pelvis.

AIM

To assess the safety of the mesh and the outcome of the procedure.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients underwent LVMR with Permacol (Biological) mesh from 2012 to 2018 at University Hospital Wishaw. Forty were treated for obstructive defecation secondary to prolapse, rectocele or internal rectal intussusception, 38 for mixed symptoms obstructive defecation and incontinence, 5 for pain and bleeding secondary to full thickness prolapse and 3 with symptoms of incontinence. Questionnaires for the calculation of Wexner scores for constipation and incontinence were completed by the patients who were followed up in the clinic 12 wk after surgery and again in 6-12 mo. The average review of their notes was 18.3 ± 4.2 mo.

RESULTS

The median Wexner scores for constipation pre-operatively and post-operatively were 14.5 [Interquartile range (IQR): 10.5-18.5] and 3 (IQR: 1-6), respectively, while the median Wexner score for faecal incontinence was 11 (IQR: 7-15) and 2 (IQR: 0-5), respectively (P < 0.01). There were 4 (4.6%) recurrences, 2 cases that presented with erosion of a suture through the rectum and one with diskitis. No mesh complications or mortalities were recorded.

CONCLUSION

LVMR using a Permacol mesh is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, rectoceles and internal rectal prolapse/intussusception.

[Biological mesh versus primary closure for pelvic floor reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a meta-analysis]

Objective: To compare the morbidity of perineum-related complication between biological mesh and primary closure in closing pelvic floor defects following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and China Biological Medicine database for published clinical researches on perineum-related complications following ELAPE between January 2007 and August 2020. Literature inclusion criteria: (1) study subjects: patients undergoing ELAPE with rectal cancers confirmed by colonoscopy pathological biopsy or surgical pathology; (2) study types: randomized controlled studies or observational studies comparing the postoperative perineum-related complications between the two groups (primary perineal closure and reconstruction with a biological mesh) following ELAPE; (3) intervention measures: biological mesh reconstruction used as the treatment group, and primary closure used as the control group; (4) outcome measures: the included literatures should at least include one of the following postoperative perineal complications: overall perineal wound complications, perineal wound infection, perineal wound dehiscence, perineal hernia, chronic sinus, chronic perineal pain (postoperative 12-month), urinary dysfunction and sexual dysfunction. Literature exclusion criteria: (1) data published repeatedly; (2) study with incomplete or wrong original data and unable to obtain original data. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment on the quality of included studies. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. The mobidities of perineum-related complications, including overall perineal wound (infection, dehiscence, hernia, chronic sinus) and perineal chronic pain (postoperative 12-month), were compared between the two pelvic floor reconstruction methods. Finally, publication bias was assessed, and sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the stability of the results. Results: A total of five studies, including two randomized controlled studies and three observational controlled studies, with 650 patients (399 cases in the biological mesh group and 251 cases in primary closure group) were finally included. Compared with primary closure, biological mesh reconstruction had significantly lower ratio of perineal hernia (RR=0.37, 95%CI: 0.21-0.64, P<0.001). No significant differences in ratios of overall perineal wound complication, perineal wound infection, perineal wound dehiscence, perineal chronic sinus and perineal chronic pain (postoperative 12-month) were found between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared with primary closure, pelvic floor reconstruction following ELAPE with biological mesh has the advantage of a lower incidence of perineal hernia.

Update in Transvaginal Grafts: The Role of Lightweight Meshes, Biologics, and Hybrid Grafts in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

Transvaginal mesh/grafts have been popularized over the past 20 years in an attempt to improve the longevity of traditional vaginal pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Several national bodies have concluded that the proposed benefits of mesh/graft implantation are outweighed by the significant increase in surgery complications related to these products. As a consequence mesh products for vaginal POP surgery have been withdrawn from use in many countries. This article is a narrative review of newer mesh and graft products including lightweight polypropylene mesh products, biological grafts, hybrid grafts, and tissue engineered grafts.

Treatment for rectourethral fistulas after radical prostatectomy with biological material interposition through a perineal access

INTRODUCTION

Rectal injury is a rare complication after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The development of rectourethral fistulas (URF) from rectal injuries is one of the most feared and of more complex resolution in urology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2020 we have operated on a total of 5 patients with URF after extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through a perineal access using the interposition of biological material. All fistulas had a diameter of less than 6 mm at endoscopy and were less than 6 cm apart from the anal margin.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 64 years old. All patients had a previous bowel and urinary diversion for at least 3 months. Under general anesthesia and with the patient in a forced lithotomy position, fistulorraphy and interposition of biological material of porcine origin (lyophilized porcine dermis [Permacol®]) were performed through a perineal access. Mean operative time was 174 min (140-210). Most patients were discharged on the third postoperative day. The bladder catheter was left in place for a mean of 40 days (30-60). Prior to its removal, cystography and a Gastrografin® barium enema were performed, showing resolution of the fistula in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The interposition of biological material from porcine dermis through perineal approach is a safe alternative with good results in patients submitted to urethrorectal fistulorraphy after radical prostatectomy.

Laparoscopic fixation of biological mesh at hiatus with glue and suture during hiatal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is associated with higher recurrence rate. Mesh is used to reduce the recurrence rate. This retrospective study is to review our experience of biological mesh fixed with suture and medical glue in hiatal hernias repairs.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted for a consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic hiatal herniorrhaphy between January 2018 and January 2019. After hiatus closure, a piece of biological prosthesis was fixed with medical glue and suture for reinforcement of the crural closure. Clinical outcomes were reviewed, and data were collected regarding operative details, complications, symptoms, and follow-up imaging. Radiological evidence of any size of hiatal hernia was considered to indicate a recurrence.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients underwent surgery uneventfully without any serious complication. There was no mortality. The follow-up was, on average, 18.4 months, and there was no symptomatic recurrence. There was one anatomical recurrence without any related presentation. The method of mesh fixation with medical glue and suture took 12 min on average, and the handling was fairly easy.

CONCLUSIONS

Biological mesh fixed with suture and medical glue was safe and effective for repairing large hiatal hernias. Of course, a longer follow-up is still needed for determining long-term outcomes.

Tratamiento de las fístulas uretrorrectales tras prostatectomía radical mediante la interposición de material biológico vía perineal

INTRODUCTION

Rectal injury is a rare complication after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The development of rectourethral fistulas (URF) from rectal injuries is one of the most feared and of more complex resolution in urology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2020 we have operated on a total of 5 patients with URF after extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through a perineal access using the interposition of biological material. All fistulas had a diameter of less than 6 mm at endoscopy and were less than 6 cm apart from the anal margin.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 64 years old. All patients had a previous bowel and urinary diversion for at least 3 months. Under general anesthesia and with the patient in a forced lithotomy position, fistulorraphy and interposition of biological material of porcine origin (lyophilized porcine dermis [Permacol®]) were performed through a perineal access. Mean operative time was 174 minutes (140-210). Most patients were discharged on the third postoperative day. The bladder catheter was left in place for a mean of 40 days (30-60). Prior to its removal, cystography and a Gastrografin® barium enema were performed, showing resolution of the fistula in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The interposition of biological material from porcine dermis through perineal approach is a safe alternative with good results in patients submitted to urethrorectal fistulorraphy after radical prostatectomy.

Biological mesh reconstruction versus primary closure for preventing perineal morbidity after extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a multicentre retrospective study

AIM

The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of perineal hernia and the perineal wound morbidity following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) between two groups - primary perineal closure and reconstruction with a biological mesh.

METHOD

One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients who underwent ELAPE for primary rectal cancer between January 2007 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centres were retrospectively identified from prospective databases. Perineal closure was carried out via primary closure or with a biological mesh (porcine dermal collagen mesh). Outcome measures were perineal hernia and perineal wound morbidity (infection, dehiscence, persistent sinus and chronic pain).

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were included in the study. A prophylactic mesh was used in 80 (57.5%) and primary closure was practised in 59 (42.4%) patients. The median follow-up was 30 (interquartile range 46.88) months. Thirty patients (21.6%) developed perineal hernia. No significant differences were found between prophylactic mesh and primary closure (16.3% vs 23.3%, P = 0.07). The median period between surgery and hernia diagnosis was 8 months in the primary closure group and 24 months in the mesh group (P < 0.01). Perineal wound morbidity was significantly higher in the prophylactic mesh group (55% vs 33.9%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the use of a biological mesh did not reduce the rate of perineal hernia, although it did delay its appearance. Perineal closure using a biological mesh may increase perineal morbidity, both acute and chronic.

Mine disaster survivor’s pelvic floor hernia treated with laparoscopic surgery and a perineal approach: A case report

BACKGROUND

A pelvic floor hernia is defined as a pelvic floor defect through which the intraabdominal viscera may protrude. It is an infrequent complication following abdominoperineal surgeries. This type of hernia requires surgical repair by conventional or reconstructive techniques. The main treatments could be transabdominal, transperineal or a combination.

CASE SUMMARY

In this article, we present the case of a recurrent perineal incisional hernia, postresection of the left side of the pelvis, testis and lower limbs resulting from a mine disaster 18 years ago. Combined laparoscopic surgery with a perineal approach was performed. The pelvic floor defect was repaired by a biological mesh and one pedicle skin flap. No signs of recurrence were indicated during the 2 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The combination of laparoscopic surgery with a perineal approach was effective. The use of the biological mesh and pedicle skin flap to restructure the pelvic floor was effective.

Biological mesh used to repair perineal hernias following abdominoperineal resection for anorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the outcome for patients who had undergone perineal hernia repair, via a perineal approach, using a biological mesh post-abdominoperineal excision (APE) for anorectal cancer.

METHOD

All consecutive patients having undergone perineal hernia repair involving an extracellular matrix of porcine small intestinal submucosa at our hospital between 2015 and 2018 were included. Follow-up clinical examinations and computed tomography scans were performed.

RESULTS

Six patients were treated surgically for symptomatic perineal hernia after a median of 31 months from APE. The median follow-up after hernia repair was 11 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-35 months). Three patients (50%) developed a recurrent perineal hernia after a median interval of 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Perineal hernia repair using a biological mesh resulted in a high recurrence rate in patients who had undergone APE for anorectal cancer.

A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients

Background

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE), abdominoperineal excision (APE) or pelvic exenteration (PE) with or without sacral resection (SR) for locally advanced rectal cancer leaves a significant defect in the pelvic floor. At first, this defect was closed primarily. To prevent perineal hernias, the use of a biological mesh to restore the pelvic floor has been increasing. The aim of this study, was to evaluate the outcome of the use of a biological mesh after ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who had ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR with a biological mesh (Permacol™) for pelvic reconstruction in rectal cancer in our center between January 2012 and April 2015. The endpoints were the incidence of perineal herniation and wound healing complications.

Results

Data of 35 consecutive patients [22 men, 13 women; mean age 62 years (range 31–77 years)] were reviewed. Median follow-up was 24 months (range 0.4–64 months). Perineal hernia was reported in 3 patients (8.6%), and was asymptomatic in 2 of them. The perineal wound healed within 3 months in 37.1% (n = 13), within 6 months in 51.4% (n = 18) and within 1 year in 62.9% (n = 22). In 17.1% (n = 6), the wound healed after 1 year. It was not possible to confirm perineal wound healing in the remaining 7 patients (20.0%) due to death or loss to follow-up. Wound dehiscence was reported in 18 patients (51.4%), 9 of whom needed vacuum-assisted closure therapy, surgical closure or a flap reconstruction.

Conclusions

Closure of the perineal wound after (EL)APE with a biological mesh is associated with a low incidence of perineal hernia. Wound healing complications in this high-risk group of patients are comparable to those reported in the literature.

Primary paediatric chest wall tumours necessitating surgical management

INTRODUCTION

Limited literature exists on oncological chest wall reconstruction in the paediatric population, with the field still largely undecided on the best surgical reconstructive techniques to employ. The use of biological grafts/meshes is gaining popularity in certain adult surgical procedures but their use in paediatric procedures is rarely reported in the literature. We present the outcomes of our institution's multidisciplinary approach to managing paediatric chest wall tumours as well as our experience with the use of biological grafts for chest wall reconstruction following oncological resections.

METHODS

Data were analysed retrospectively from eight paediatric patients who were treated for primary chest wall tumours between 2010 and 2018.

RESULTS

The tumours comprised two lipoblastomas, three Ewing's sarcomas, an undifferentiated sarcoma with osteosarcomatous differentiation, a high grade undifferentiated sarcoma and a myofibroma. Seven of the eight patients underwent chest wall reconstruction with a biological graft. There were no postoperative mortalities and no evidence of recurrence in any of the patients in the series. No further chest wall operations were required and there were no postoperative infection related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

We support the use of biological grafts for chest wall reconstruction after oncological resections and maintain that a multidisciplinary approach is essential for the management of paediatric chest wall tumours.

Significantly reducing implant loss rates in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: A protocol and completed audit of quality assurance

INTRODUCTION

Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) rates have increased considerably with the advent of acellular dermal matrices. Implant loss is a significant complication and is costly to patients and the NHS. National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Audit data have demonstrated national implant loss rate of 9% at 3 months. National Oncoplastic Guidelines for Best Practice cite a < 5% target. We aimed to reduce implant loss by introducing a protocol with pre-, intra- and post-operative interventions.

METHODS

Audit of IBR at a single oncoplastic breast unit was commenced and implant loss at 3 months was recorded (May 2012-July 2014). Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database, and case notes were examined by identifying factors associated with implant loss. A team involving microbiology, theatre staff, infection control and surgeons was established. A novel, evidence-based intervention bundle, including more than 25 protocol changes, was introduced. Prospective re-audit of IBR (April 2015-December 2017) was completed following introduction of the new protocol and implant loss was recorded at 3 months.

RESULTS

The first retrospective audit of 77 reconstructions (54 patients) demonstrated 11 implant losses at 3 months (14%). Re-audit, post-intervention, comprised 129 reconstructions (106 patients) with no implant loss at 3 months. Fisher's exact analysis revealed statistically significant reduction in implant loss rate (P < 0.00001) following protocol introduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant loss rate following IBR can be reduced to an exceptionally low level, well below national targets, by adhering to this evidence-based intervention bundle. Our protocol could improve outcomes nationally.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh for recurrent disorders of the posterior pelvic organ compartment

PURPOSE

Recurrent prolapse of the posterior pelvic organ compartment presents a management challenge, with the best surgical procedure remaining unclear. We present functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) with biological mesh in patients with recurrence.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 30 patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse who underwent VMR with biological mesh from August 2012 to January 2018. Data included patient demographics and intra- and postoperative findings; functional outcome as assessed by Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS); and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were significantly improved at 6-12 months postoperatively and at last follow-up. Patient satisfaction (visual analog scale [VAS] 6.7 [0 to 10]), subjective symptoms (+ 3.4 [scale - 5 to + 5]), and quality of life improvement (+ 3.0 [scale from - 5 to + 5]) were high at last follow-up. The rates of morbidity and major complications were 13% and 3%, respectively. There were no mesh-related complications or deaths. Difference in type of previous surgery (abdominal or transanal/perineal) had no significant effect on results.

CONCLUSIONS

VMR with biological mesh is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It reduces functional symptoms, has a low complication rate, and promotes patient satisfaction.

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias: WSES guidelines

PURPOSE

In July 2013, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held the first Consensus Conference on emergency repair of abdominal wall hernias in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines to assist surgeons in the management of complicated abdominal wall hernias. Guidelines were updated in 2017 in keeping with varying clinical practice: benefits resulting from the increased use of biological prosthesis in the emergency setting were highlighted, as previously published in the World Journal of Emergency Surgery. This executive summary is intended to consolidate knowledge on the emergency management of complicated hernias by providing the broad readership with a practical and concise version of the original guidelines.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines reporting on the emergency management of complicated abdominal wall hernias; statements are highlighted focusing the readers' attention on the main concepts presented in the original guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal hernias remains one of the most common and challenging surgical emergencies worldwide. WSES aims to provide an essential version of the evidence-based guidelines focusing on the timing of intervention, laparoscopic approach, surgical repair following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classification, antimicrobial prophylaxis and anesthesia in the emergency setting.

A prospective study

PURPOSE

The long-term results for inguinal hernia repair (IH) with the use of biological mesh (BM) are not known. A prospective study was started in 2003-2004 to evaluate the results of pure tissue (IH) repair with the use of biological mesh with a 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

From March 2003 to December 2004, all patients with IH who presented to the office, including incarcerated and recurrent IH, not excluding any, underwent pure tissue IH repair reinforced with a BM. During this period, 101 patients (87/male, 14/female) underwent 104 IH repair with a continuous suture of transversalis to transversalis fascia repair reinforced with BM of porcine intestinal submucosal origin (Surgisis, Cook) and were followed up for 10 years.

RESULTS

There were 104 IH, 90 electives (86%), 2 incarcerated (1.9%), and 12 recurrent (11%). Follow-up was scheduled at 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, 3 years, 7 years and 10 years., in 100%, 100%, 99%, 93%, 89% and 85% of the patients, respectively. Recurrence was observed in 2/104 (1.9%): one recurrence at 1 week in a patient with bilateral IH and one at 7 years. The mean recovery time was 1.2 days (range 1-5 days). Mortality was 0(0%).

COMPLICATIONS

six hematic infiltration to the scrotum and one to the vulva, all resolved spontaneously; wound infection 0(0%); urinary retention 11/104 (10.5%); inguinal scrotal hypoesthesia 7/104(6.7%), improved after 4-6months; asymptomatic fever of 39°C, 2/104 patients (1.9%), responded to a single dose of 4 mg betamethasone. No long-term inguinal pain complaint was found except for one patient with a recurrent IH.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of BM to reinforce a pure tissue IH repair is safe and effective. The recurrence rate is comparable to short- and long-term synthetic mesh IH repair with less complications and pain than the use of synthetic mesh as reported in the literature.

A novel tool to evaluate bias in literature on use of biologic mesh in abdominal wall hernia repair

PURPOSE

Biologic meshes are being increasingly used for abdominal hernia repair in high-risk patients or patients with a previous history of wound infection, due to their infection-resistant properties. Several studies have been carried out to assess whether biologic mesh is superior to synthetic mesh, as well as to establish guidelines for their use. Unfortunately, most of these studies were not rigorously designed and were vulnerable to different types of bias. The systematic reviews that have been published so far on this topic contain the same biases and limitations of the primary articles that are analyzed. The lack of a literature review on the bias on the use of biological mesh prompted us to conduct the literature search, assessment and plan this article.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases of systematic reviews on biologic mesh for ventral hernia repair. The literature review was conducted using the Population, Intervention, Comparisons, Outcomes and Design approach. We identified 40 studies that matched the stringent criteria we had set. We then created a 13-point instrument to assess for bias and applied it on the primary studies that we intended to analyze.

RESULTS

Most primary studies are case series or case reports of patients undergoing abdominal hernia repair with biologic mesh, without any comparison group, and the inclusion of cases was only specified to be consecutive in 6 out of 40 cases. In terms of assessing outcomes, in none of the 40 articles were the outcome assessors blinded to the intervention or exposure status of participants.

CONCLUSION

The instrument that we created could allow to assess the risk of bias in different kind of studies. Our assessment of the studies based on the criteria that we had set up in the instrument clearly identified that further research needs to be done due to the lack of unbiased studies regarding the use of biologic meshes for abdominal hernia repair.

Repair of complex abdominal wall hernias with a cross-linked porcine acellular matrix: cross-sectional results of a Dutch cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of synthetic mesh in potentially contaminated and contaminated incisional hernias may lead to a higher morbidity and mortality. Biological meshes may provide a solution, but since these meshes are rarely used, little is known about long-term results. The aim of this cohort study was to evaluate the long-term clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction following Permacol™ in complex abdominal wall hernia repair (CAWHR) patients in a cross-sectional fashion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients were operated for CAWHR with Permacol™ in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2012. The design was a multicenter cross-sectional cohort study. The STROCSS statement was followed. Patients were interviewed, underwent abdominal examination, and completed quality-of-life questionnaires. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02166112. Research Registry Identifier researchregistry4713.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were seen in the outpatient clinic. Their hernias were classified as potentially contaminated in 25 patients (32.5%) and infected in 52 patients (67.5%). The mean follow-up was 22.2 ± 12.6 months. The most frequent postoperative complication was wound infection (n = 21; 27.3%), meshes had to be removed in five patients (6.5%). By the time of their visit to the outpatient clinic, 22 patients (28.6%) had a recurrence of whom ten (13%) had undergone reoperation. Thirty-nine patients (50.6%) had bulging of the abdominal wall. Quality-of-life questionnaires revealed that patients graded their health status with a mean 6.8 (± 1.8) out of 10 points.

CONCLUSION

Bulging and recurrence are frequently observed in patients treated with Permacol™ for CAWHR. Considering both recurrence and bulging as undesirable outcomes of treatment, a total of 46 patients (59.7%) had an unfavorable outcome. Infection rates were high, but comparable with similar patient cohorts. Quality-of-life questionnaires revealed that patients were satisfied with their general health, but scored significantly lower on most quality-of-life modalities of the Short Form-36 questionnaire.

Lessons learned from 227 biological meshes used for the surgical treatment of ventral abdominal defects

PURPOSE

The advantages of biological meshes for ventral hernia repair are still under debate. Given the high financial cost, the proper indications for biological meshes should be clarified to restrict their use to properly selected patients.

METHODS

A retrospective database was instituted to register all cases of abdominal wall defect treated with biological meshes from 1/2010 to 3/2016.

RESULTS

A total of 227 patients (mean age: 64 years) whose ventral abdominal defects were reconstructed with a biological mesh were included in the study. Patients were divided according to the 2010 four-level surgical-site complication risk grading system proposed by the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG): Grade 1 (G1, 12 cases), Grade 2 (G2, 68 cases), Grade 3 (G3, 112 cases), and Grade 4 (G4, 35 cases). The surgical site complication rate was higher in patients with one or more risk factors (33.6% vs 19% in patients with no risk factors) (P = 0.68). Statistically significant risk factors associated with the onset of one or more postoperative surgical site complications included: diabetes, coronary artery disease, immunosuppression, and obesity. Recurrence was more common in patients with surgical site complications and mainly associated with infection (38.9%) and wound necrosis (44.4%), and in cases of inlay positioning of the mesh (36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to their high costs, biological mesh should not be used in G1 patients. In infected fields (G4), they should only be used if no other surgical solution is feasible. There is a clear need to prospectively evaluate the performance of biological meshes.

BIOLAP: biological versus synthetic mesh in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: study protocol for a randomized, multicenter, self-controlled clinical trial

Background

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical operations globally; more than 20 million groin herniae are repaired annually worldwide. Recurrence after an inguinal hernia operation is a considerable clinical problem. Another remaining problem after hernia surgery is the occurrence of chronic pain. Up to now, the use of synthetic meshes is the standard procedure, but there is increasing evidence that biological meshes could be advantageous concerning the occurrence of chronic pain due to different postoperative remodeling, without the disadvantages of a life-long implant.

We hypothesize that the use of a biological mesh reduces postoperative pain without being inferior in terms of recurrence rate compared with a synthetic mesh.

Methods/design

The trial compares possible the advantages of biological matrices to synthetic meshes in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Four hundred and ninety-six patients with primary bilateral inguinal herniae in 20 German hernia centers will be enrolled. Biological mesh is used for one of the bilateral herniae, the other side will be operated on with a synthetic mesh. Randomization will preset which side is repaired with which material and trial participants will not be informed about the location of each mesh type. The primary endpoints will be intensity of postoperative local pain and the incidence of recurrent hernia after 2 years.

Discussion

There is no reasonably sized trial that assesses the use of biological meshes in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Our self-controlled trial design allows a direct comparison of the two meshes with very few confounding factors as well as minimizing the exclusion criteria. As we compare CE-certified medical devices in their designated indication the medical risk is not different compared to routine clinical care. Due to the common nature of bilateral inguinal hernia, a high recruitment rate is achievable. Because guidelines for hernia repair have stressed the need for reliable data on the already frequent use of biological meshes, we can expect our trial to have a direct implication on hernia-repair standards.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00010178. Registered on 16.June.2016. BIOLAP underwent full external peer review as part of the funding process with the German Research Foundation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3122-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Simultaneous stoma reinforcement and perineal reconstruction with biological mesh - A multicentre prospective observational study

Introduction

The optimal method for perineal reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (elAPE) for low rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to assess whether simultaneous perineal reconstruction and parastomal reinforcement with Strattice™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix after elAPE could prevent hernia formation.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre, observational, non-comparative study of consecutive patients undergoing elAPE for low rectal cancer underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ mesh. All patients underwent long course chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery and had excision of the coccyx. Patients were assessed for perineal wound healing at 7 day, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, perineal and parastomal hernia defects on clinical and radiological assessment at 1 year following surgery.

Results

19 patients (median age = 67 years, median BMI = 26, M:F = 11:8) were entered the study. 10 (52.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic elAPE. The median length of post-operative stay was 9 days. Complete wound healing was observed for 8(42%) patients at 1 month, 12(63%) at 3 months, and 19(100%) patients at 12 months. Median time for radiological and clinical assessment for hernias was 12 months. No perineal hernia was detected in 17 patients following CT assessment. Dynamic MRI was undertaken in 11 patients at 12 months and all showed no evidence of perineal hernia. 3 (16%) patients had a parastomal hernia detected radiologically. No mesh was removed during the 12 months follow up period.

Conclusion

Perineal and parastomal reconstruction with biological mesh is a feasible approach for parastomal and perineal hernia prevention after laparoscopic and open elAPE.

•

In this case series, consecutive patients underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ biological mesh.

•

Simultaneous perineal and parastomal reconstruction with Strattice™ mesh is an effective method of hernia prevention after elAPE.

•

High quality prospective RCTs and national/international collaborative audits are required to compare this technique with others for perineal reconstruction.

Deperitoneum biological mesh repair for abdominal wall hernia: a novel wound healing promotion idea

PURPOSE

Nowadays, biological matrix has become more widely applied than synthetic mesh for the surgical management of ventral hernia. Conventionally, such biodegradable matrix is commonly placed in an intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal position to reinforce the abdominal wall during surgery. Herein, we introduce our novel idea to deliver such biological material.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After contrast-enhanced CT-scan via lateral decubitus confirmed the position of ventral hernias, 11 patients underwent deperitoneum biological mesh repair by open or laparoscopic approach. During surgery, biological material was placed in preperitoneal position with elimination of matrix-covered peritoneum meanwhile. No bridge repair was allowed for this technique. Postoperative complications were prospectively documented.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic and open repair were performed in six and five patients, respectively. The mean operative time was 115 min, with no significant difference between the two procedures. All patients had quick recovery and returned to their normal life, with median five days (range, 3-12 days) of hospital stay after surgery. Although wound dehiscence and chronic pain occurred in three (27.3%) patients, no additional surgery was required. No recurrence case was observed within the one-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

This novel approach could be safely performed in ventral hernia patients. Early evaluation of this surgical technique demonstrates quick recovery and minimal complications.

Updates in Mesh and Biomaterials

Prior publications of the Surgical Clinics of North America have highlighted the technical challenges of abdominal wall reconstruction. This article provides an update on synthetic, biologic, and biosynthetic mesh research since the 2013 Surgical Clinics of North America hernia publication and highlights the future of mesh research. This update features research that has been conducted since the prior publication to guide surgeons to choose the best and most appropriate mesh for their patients.

Use of a biological mesh for the treatment of perineal fistula following radical colorectal resection

Patients with postradiation therapy for malignancies and/or extensive colorectal surgery are prone to the development of enteroperineal fistulas. Application of biological meshes may prove beneficial in treating complicated enteroperineal fistulas as they provide a stable ground for closing pelvic defects even in contaminated fields.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh: short-term functional results

PURPOSE

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is an established, minimally invasive, nerve-sparing procedure for the treatment of various symptomatic morphological changes in the posterior pelvic compartment. We present the short-term functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic VMR with biological mesh.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 123 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) or robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) from August 2012 to January 2017. Included in these data were patient demographics, intra- and postoperative findings, Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), and patient satisfaction as measured by visual analog scale (0-10).

RESULTS

Improvements in CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were statistically significant at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was excellent at 6 and 12 months (8.2/10 and 8.3/10, respectively). The overall complication rate was 14%, with a major complication rate of 2%. No mesh-related complications were observed. The need for surgical re-intervention because of relapse, symptom persistence or recurrence, or new symptoms was 3%. Outcome appears to be similar between LVMR and RVMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LVMR and RVMR with biological mesh are safe and effective in reducing symptoms, as measured by CCCS, CCIS, and ODS, and patient satisfaction is high.

Use of biological mesh in trans-anal treatment for recurrent recto-urethral fistula

PURPOSE

To report the author's experience on a mini-invasive technique using bioprosthetic plug and a rectal wall flap advancement in the treatment of recurrent recto-urethral fistula.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2015, seven patients with recurrent recto-urethral fistula were referred to the Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy. Intraoperatively all patients were found to have a rectal wall lesion and were treated with urinary and fecal diversion. For the persistence of the fistula, all the patients underwent a mini-invasive treatment consisting on placement of a bioprosthetic plug in the fistula covered by an endorectal advancement flap through a trans-anal and trans-urethral combined technique.

RESULTS

Median operative time was 48 min with a median blood loss of 30 ml. Median hospital stay was 3 days (IQR 1-3). No case of fistula recurrence or plug migration was described. None of the patients experienced fecal or urinary incontinence. All patients obtained complete fistula healing.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent recto-urethral fistula is a challenging postsurgical complication for surgeons and urologists, and its best treatment is still unknown. Our method seems to be feasible and effective for the treatment of complex recto-urethral fistula.

Biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor following abdominoperineal excision for cancer: A review

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration are mutilating operations that leave wide perineal wounds. Such large wounds are prone to infection and perineal herniation, and their closure is a major concern to most surgeons. Different approaches to the perineal repair exist, varying from primary or mesh closure to myocutaneous flaps. Each technique has its own associated advantages and potential complications and the ideal approach is still debated. In the present study, we reviewed the current literature and our own local data regarding the use of biological mesh for perineal wound closure. Current evidence suggests that the use of biological mesh carries an acceptable risk of wound complications compared to primary closure and is similar to flap reconstruction. In addition, the rate of perineal hernia is lower in early follow-up, while long-term hernia occurrence appears to be similar between the different techniques. Finally, it is an easy and quick reconstruction method. Although more expensive than primary closure, the cost associated with the use of a biological mesh is at least equal, if not less, than flap reconstruction.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

Purpose

This review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.

Methods

A systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.

Results

Eight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.

Conclusion

The incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

Effectiveness and versatility of biological prosthesis in transplanted patients

AIM

To emphasize the effectiveness and versatility of prosthesis, and good tolerance by patients with incisional hernia (IH).

METHODS

From December 2001 to February 2016, 270 liver transplantations were performed at San Camillo Hospital. IH occurred in 78 patients (28.8%). IH usually appeared early within the first year post-orthotopic liver transplantation. In the first era, fascial defect was repaired by primary closure for defects smaller than 2.5 cm or with synthetic mesh for greater defects. Recently, we started using biological mesh (Permacol™, Covidien). We present a series of five transplanted patients submitted to surgery for abdominal wall defect correction repaired with biological mesh (Permacol™, Covidien).

RESULTS

In our cases, the use of biological prosthesis (Permacol™, Covidien) have proven to be effective and versatile in repairing hernia defects of different kinds; patients did not suffer infections of the prosthesis and no recurrence was observed. Furthermore, the prosthesis remains intact even in the years after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The cases that we presented show that the use of biological mesh (Permacol™, Covidien) in transplanted patients may be safe and effective, being careful in the management of perioperative immunosuppression and renal and graft function, although the cost of the product itself has been the main limiting factor and there is need for prospective studies for further evaluations.

Post-incisional ventral hernia repair in patients undergoing chemotherapy: improving outcomes with biological mesh

Background

Patients requiring ventral hernia (VH) repair during perioperative chemotherapy have a higher risk for post-operative complications. The aim of the study was to perform a case-controlled analysis in patients undergoing chemotherapy who underwent VH repair using biological mesh or synthetic mesh.

Methods

From January 2013 to December 2015, 32 patients, within 8 weeks from chemotherapy administration, were treated electively for VH repair using a biological mesh (BIOMESH). A control group (CG) receiving chemotherapy within the same time interval and treated with synthetic meshes was selected. There were no differences regarding sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score III, BMI, and size of the defect. Morbidity, type of complications, and recurrence rate were investigated and compared between the two groups.

Results

In the BIOMESH group, eight patients (25 %) experienced complications. Wound dehiscence occurred in four (12.5 %) patients and was treated conservatively. Only three small seromas not requiring treatment were observed. The CG presented a higher mean Clavien-Dindo complication grade (1.94 ± 0.44 vs 1.63 ± 0.52; p = 0.13) and a higher incidence of wound dehiscence (n = 9/32, 28.1 % vs n = 4/32, 12.5 %; p = 0.11). Five patients developed seroma treated by wound drainage. One patient experienced an intra-abdominal collection treated by percutaneous drainage. At the univariate and multivariate analysis use of traditional mesh, BMI and the ASA III were predictive factors of post-operative complications. Two patients (6.3 %) developed a VH recurrence only in the CG.

Conclusions

Biological meshes could be considered a valid option to improve post-operative short-term outcomes in selected high-risk patients undergoing chemotherapy treated for VH repair.

Human immune-cell response towards diverse xenogeneic and allogeneic decellularized biomaterials

BACKGROUND

Immunological knowledge on processed biological implants and mesh-prostheses is still mainly based on animal models, lacking information on the species-specific human immune response. We hypothesized that in contrast to human tissue even decellularized xenogenic specimens would lead to significant and tissue source dependent human immune reactions.

METHODS

Specimens from processed allogenic and xenogenic pulmonary arteries, pericardium or dermis, were co-cultured with human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNC). Proliferative responses were measured in tritiated thymidine incorporation assays (n = 10). Stimulation indices (SI), calculated as counts-per-minute of co-cultured PBMNC divided by the cpm of basic cell proliferation, were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to native porcine pulmonary artery tissue decellularization significantly reduced human PBMNC proliferation (mean SI: 48.7 vs. 18.0, p < 0.01), which was still higher compared to the human equivalent (SI: 0.7 vs. 1.7). Also the processed human dermal implant did not elicit immune response (SI: 1.5), whereas the decellularized and cross-linked porcine dermis lead to a significant human cell-proliferation (SI: 8.4, p < 0.01). Interestingly, both the processed human (SI: 15.2) and bovine pericardial patches (SI: 15.1) led to higher immune cell proliferation.

CONCLUSION

Even decellularized or cross-linked xenogenic cardiovascular and reconstructive biomaterials elicit increased human immune responses not seen in the majority of allogenic specimens tested.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.

Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?

Purpose

This study aimed to determine the outcome of perineal hernia repair with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal resection (APR).

Method

All consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with a porcine acellular dermal mesh between 2010 and 2014 were included. Follow-up was performed by clinical examination and MRI.

Results

Fifteen patients underwent perineal hernia repair after a median of 25 months from APR. Four patients had a concomitant contaminated perineal defect, for which a gluteal fasciocutaneous flap was added in three patients. Wound infection occurred in three patients. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 12–24), a clinically recurrent perineal hernia developed in 7 patients (47 %): 6 of 11 patients after a non-cross-linked mesh and 1 of 4 patients after a cross-linked mesh (p = 0.57). Routine MRI at a median of 17 months revealed a recurrent perineal hernia in 7 of 10 evaluable patients, with clinical confirmation of recurrence in 5 of these 7 patients. No recurrent hernia was observed in the three patients with combined flap reconstruction for contaminated perineal defects.

Conclusion

A high recurrence rate was observed after biological mesh repair of a perineal hernia following APR.

Conventional fascial technique versus mesh repair for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: Analysis of recurrences in treated and untreated compartments

117 women with severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP; stage > 2) were enrolled to elucidate a 24-month outcome of POP surgery, using conventional or mesh repair with 3 techniques. 59 patients underwent conventional repair and 58 underwent mesh repair. Two types of mesh were used: a trocar-guided transobturator polypropylene (Avaulta, Bard Inc.) and a porcine dermis mesh (Pelvisoft, Bard Inc.). Women with recurrences, who underwent previous unsuccessful conventional repair, were randomised. Primary outcome was the evaluation of anatomic failures (prolapse stage > 1) in treated and untreated compartments. Anatomic failure was observed in 11 of 58 patients (19%; CI 8.9-29) in the mesh group and in 16 of 59 patients (27.1%; p value = 0.3) in the conventional group. 9 of 11 failures in the mesh group (15.5%; CI 6.2-24.8) were observed in the untreated compartment (de novo recurrences), 14.3% in Pelvisoft and 16.7% in Avaulta arm, while only 1 recurrence in the untreated compartment (1.7%) was observed in the conventional group (odds ratio 10.6, p = 0.03).

One year experience of swine dermal non-crosslinked collagen prostheses for abdominal wall repairs in elective and emergency surgery

Introduction

The approach to the abdominal wall surgical repair is dramatically changed in the last years. This study evaluates our institutional outcomes about the usage of biological meshes for abdominal wall repair in different setting: in elective surgery, in emergency surgery and in abdominal wall repair following open abdomen (OA) procedure.

Methods

A database was prospectively conducted (January–December 2014) and data were reviewed for patients who underwent to an abdominal wall reconstruction with swine dermal non-cross linked collagens prostheses either in elective or emergency setting, and following OA/laparostomy procedure. Demographic data, co-morbidities, indications for surgery, intra-operative details, post-operative complications and outcome (peri-operative, 3, 6, 9-months) were analyzed.

Results

A total of 30 cases were reported: 9 in elective surgery (Group 1), 4 in emergency surgery (Group 2) and 17 with abdominal wall closure following OA management (Group 3). Two meshes were removed: 1 in the Group 1 and 1 in the Group 3. During follow-up only one patient in the Group 3 had a recurrence of the incisional hernia. Mortality rate was 11.1 % at 3 months in Group 1, 0 % in the Group 2, and 29.4 % in peri-operative period in the Group 3.

Conclusions

The use of non-cross linked biological meshes can be safe and versatile in different situations from elective to emergency surgery, and also for the reconstruction of the abdominal wall after OA procedure, with an acceptable recurrence and mortality rate.

Biology of biological meshes used in hernia repair

Successful repair of most hernias requires the use of a prosthetic implant for reinforcement of the defect. Because of the need for prosthetic implants to resist infections as well to support repairs in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields, biological meshes have been developed to take the place of nondegradable synthetic meshes in cases where mesh infection is of high concern. The ideal is a biological matrix that resists infection while providing durable reinforcement of a hernia repair. This article reviews the validity of assumptions that support the purported notion of the biological behavior of biological meshes.