Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biocompatibility of bacterial contaminated prosthetic meshes and porcine dermal collagen used to repair abdominal wall defects

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims

A contaminated or infected surgical site is considered a contraindication for the use of the nonabsorbable alloplastic materials employed to repair abdominal wall defects. Therefore, the biocompatibility of new prosthetic materials was investigated.

Materials and methods

Meshes measuring 1.5×1.5 cm made of conventional and titanium-coated polypropylene, polyglycol, or porcine dermal collagen were implanted under the abdominal wall of 96 rats (eight groups of 12 animals each) employing the inlay technique. Implantation of all four materials was performed both under semisterile conditions and bacterial contamination of the mesh. The meshes were explanted after 28 days.

Results

All the materials implanted under semisterile conditions were incorporated into the abdominal wall with only few intraabdominal adhesions (mean adhesion scores: 1.0, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 points, respectively, not significant). With the porcine dermal collagen, proliferation rate and the proportion of inflammatory cells were statistically lower (p<0.01). In the bacterial contamination group, all meshes were associated with a suppurating infection and strong adhesions between the bowel and mesh, which were most prominent in the case of dermal collagen (mean adhesion scores: 1.6, 1.7, 1.7, and 1.9 points, respectively, not significant). In this group, two animals died of peritonitis. In comparison with the other materials, the proliferation rate was significantly elevated (p=0.03). No significant differences were seen between the other materials employed.

Conclusion

Irrespective of the material employed, implantation of alloplastic meshes in an abdominal wall contaminated with bacteria, is associated with suppurating infections, in particular in the case of the membrane-like porcine dermal collagen. Nonabsorbable alloplastic meshes and dermal skin grafts should therefore not be used to repair infected abdominal wall defects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, Boelhouwer RU, de Vries BC, Salu MK, Wereldsma JC, Bruijninckx CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343(6):392–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Korenkov M, Sauerland S, Arndt M, Bograd L, Neugebauer EA, Troidl H (2002) Randomized clinical trial of suture repair, polypropylene mesh or autodermal hernioplasty for incisional hernia. Br J Surg 89(1):50–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T (2003) Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time? A population-based analysis. Ann Surg 237(1):129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Law NW, Ellis H (1991) A comparison of polypropylene mesh and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch for the repair of contaminated abdominal wall defects—an experimental study. Surgery 109(5):652–655

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Scheidbach H, Tannapfel A, Schmidt U, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2004) Influence of titanium coating on the biocompatibility of a heavyweight polypropylene mesh. An animal experimental model. Eur Surg Res 36(5):313–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chaplin JM, Costantino PD, Wolpoe ME, Bederson JB, Griffey ES, Zhang WX (1999) Use of an acellular dermal allograft for dural replacement: an experimental study. Neurosurgery 45:320–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerberg B, Piroth C, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2002) Do multifilament alloplastic meshes increase the infection rate? Analysis of the polymeric surface, the bacteria adherence, and the in vivo consequences in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res 63:765–771

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. van ‘t Riet M, de Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Bonthuis F, Marquet RL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2003) Prevention of adhesion to prosthetic mesh: comparison of different barriers using an incisional hernia model. Ann Surg 237(1):123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lopez Villalta GC, Furio-Bacete V, Ortiz Oshiro E, Lopez DO, Vaca Vaticon D, Fdez-Represa JA (1995) Experimentally contaminated reabsorbable meshes: their evolution in abdominal wall defects. Int Surg 80(3):223–226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Junge K, Rosch R, Klinge U, Saklak M, Klosterhalfen B, Peiper C, Schumpelick V (2005) Titanium coating of a polypropylene mesh for hernia repair: effect on biocompatibility. Hernia 9(2):115–119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Birolini C, Utiyama EM, Rodrigues AJ Jr, Birolini D (2000) Elective colonic operation and prosthetic repair of incisional hernia: does contamination contraindicate abdominal wall prosthesis use? J Am Coll Surg 191(4):366–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133(4):378–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vrijland WW, Jeekel J, Steyerberg EW, Den Hoed PT, Bonjer HJ (2000) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh repair of incisional hernia is not associated with enterocutaneous fistula. Br J Surg 87(3):348–352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 284:1318–1321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. An YH, Friedman RJ (1998) Concise review of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 43:338–348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellon JM, Garcia-Carranza A, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martin A, Bujan J (2004) Tissue integration and biochemical behaviour of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 91:489–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J (2000) Ultrastructural alterations of polytetrafluoroethylene prostheses implanted in abdominal wall provoked by infection: clinical and experimental study. World J Surg 24:528–532

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bleichrodt RP, Simmermacher RK, van der Lei B, Schakenraad JM (1993) Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch versus polypropylene mesh for the repair of contaminated defects of the abdominal wall. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176(1):18–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Junge K, Rosch R, Klinge U, Krones C, Klosterhalfen B, Mertens PR, Lynen P, Kunz D, Preiss A, Peltroche-Llacsahuanga H, Schumpelick V (2005) Gentamicin supplementation of polyvinylidenfluoride mesh materials for infection prophylaxis. Biomaterials 26(7):787–793

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery II, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04105, Leipzig, Germany

    R. Ott, T. Hartwig & Ch. Möbius

  2. Department of Surgery and Center of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hanover Hospital, Hanover, Germany

    F. Köckerling

  3. Department of Pathology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    A. Tannapfel

  4. Department of Microbiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    R. Blatz & A. C. Rodloff

  5. Center of Experimental Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    P. Madaj-Sterba

Authors
  1. R. Ott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Hartwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Tannapfel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Blatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. C. Rodloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Madaj-Sterba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ch. Möbius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. F. Köckerling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Ott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ott, R., Hartwig, T., Tannapfel, A. et al. Biocompatibility of bacterial contaminated prosthetic meshes and porcine dermal collagen used to repair abdominal wall defects. Langenbecks Arch Surg 392, 473–478 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-006-0080-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-006-0080-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation