Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biofilms and effective porosity of hernia mesh: are they silent assassins?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to communicate two new concepts with the potential to cause major morbidity in hernia repair, effective porosity and biofilm. These 2 concepts are interrelated and have the potential to result in mesh-related complications. Effective porosity is a term well described in the textile industry. It is best defined as the changes to pore morphology after implantation of mesh in situ. It is heavily dependent on mesh construct and repair technique and has the potential to impact hernia repair by reducing mesh tissue integration and promoting fibrosis. Bacterial biofilm is a well-described condition affecting prosthesis in breast and join replacement surgery with catastrophic consequences. There is a paucity of information on bacterial biofilm in mesh hernia repair. We speculate that bacterial biofilm has the potential to reduce the effective porosity of mesh, resulting in non-suppurative mesh-related complications as well as the potential for late suppurative infections. We describe the aetiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and preventative measures to address bacterial biofilm in mesh hernia surgery. Hernia surgeons should be familiar with these two new concepts which have the potential to cause major morbidity in hernia repair and know how to address them.

Methods

Ovid Medline and PubMed were searched for communications on “effective porosity” and “bacterial biofilm”.

Results

There is a paucity of information in the literature of these conditions and their impact on outcomes following mesh hernia repair.

Conclusions

We discuss the two concepts of effective porosity and biofilm and propose potential measures to reduce mesh-related complications. This includes choosing mesh with superior mesh construct and technical nuances in implanting mesh to improve effective porosity. Furthermore, measures to reduce bacterial biofilm and its consequences are suggested.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Ploeg RJ (2008) Morphological aspects of surgical meshes as a risk factor for bacterial colonization. Br J Surg 95(8):1051–1059

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aydinuraz K, Agalar C, Agalar F, Ceken S, Duruyurek N, Vural T (2009) In vitro S. epidermidis and S. aureus adherence to composite and lightweight polypropylene grafts. J Surg Res 157(1):e79–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reslinski A, Mikucka A, Szmytkowski J, Gospodarek E, Dabrowiecki S (2009) In vivo biofilm on the surface of a surgical mesh implant. Pol J Microbiol 58(4):367–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stoodley P, Sidhu S, Nistico L, Mather M, Boucek A, Hall L et al (2012) Kinetics and morphology of polymicrobial biofilm formation on polypropylene mesh. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 65(2):283–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kathju S, Nistico L, Melton R, Lasko LA, Stoodley P (2015) Direct demonstration of bacterial biofilms on prosthetic mesh after ventral herniorrhaphy. Surg Infect 16(1):45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Langbach O, Kristoffersen AK, Abesha E, Enersen M, Rokke O, Olsen I (2016) Oral, intestinal, and skin bacteria in ventral hernia mesh implants. J Oral Microbiol 8:31854

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacombs A, Allan J, Hu H, Valente PM, Wessels WL, Deva AK et al (2012) Prevention of biofilm-induced capsular contracture with antibiotic-impregnated mesh in a porcine model. Aesthet Surg J 32(7):886–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Reinbold J, Hierlemann T, Urich L, Uhde AK, Muller I, Weindl T, et al. Biodegradable rifampicin-releasing coating of surgical meshes for the prevention of bacterial infections.

  9. Cazalini EM, Miyakawa W, Teodoro GR, Sobrinho ASS, Matieli JE, Massi M et al (2017) Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties of polypropylene meshes coated with metal-containing DLC thin films. J Mater Sci Mater Med 28(6):97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bigelow TA, Thomas CL, Wu H, Itani KMF (2019) Impact of high-intensity ultrasound on strength of surgical mesh when treating biofilm infections. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 66(1):38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Perez-Kohler B, Bayon Y, Bellon JM (2016) Mesh infection and hernia repair: a review. Surg Infect 17(2):124–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guillaume O, Perez Kohler B, Fortelny R, Redl H, Moriarty F, Richards RG et al (2018) A critical review of the in vitro and in vivo models for the evaluation of anti-infective meshes. Hernia 22(6):961–974

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Guillaume O, Perez R, Fortelny R, Redl H, Moriarty TF, Richards RG et al (2018) Infections associated with mesh repairs of abdominal wall hernias: are antimicrobial biomaterials the longed-for solution? Biomaterials 167:15–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Vert M, Hellwich KH, Hess M et al (2012) Terminology for biorelated polymers and applications (IUPAC recommendations 2012). Pure Appl Chem 84:377–410

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilm: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 284:1318–1322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Srivastava S, Bhargava A (2015) Biofilms and human health. Biotechnol Lett 38:1–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Montanaro L (2018) Implant infections: adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:397–409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Del Pozo JL, Patel R (2007) The challenge of treating biofilm-associated bacterial infections. Clin Pharmacol Ther 82:204–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Ehrlich GD et al (2015) Biofilm-based implant infections in orthopaedics. Adv Exp Med Biol 830:29–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stoodley P, Ehrlich GD, Sedghizadeh PP et al (2011) Orthopaedic biofilm infections. Curr Orthop Pract 22:558–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacombs A, Tahir S, Hu H et al (2014) In vitro and in vivo investigation of the influence of implant surface on the formation of bacterial biofilm in mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:471e–e480

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chong SJ, Deva AK (2015) Understanding the etiology and prevention of capsular contracture: translating science into practice. Clin Plast Surg 42:427–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kirmusaoglu S, Yurdugul S, Metin A et al (2017) The effect of urinary catheters on microbial biofilms and catheter associated urinary tract infections. Urol J 14:3028–3034

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Laohapensang K, Arworn S, Orrapin S et al (2017) Management of the infected aortic endograft. Semin Vasc Surg 30:91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rupp ME, Karnatak R (2018) Intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infections. Infect Dis Clin N Am 32:765–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Romano CL, Romano D, Morelli I, et al. The concept of biofilm-related implant malfunction and "low-grade infection". In: Drago J (eds) A modern approach to biofilm-related orthopaedic implant infections. advances in experimental medicine and biology. Switzerland: Springer International; 2017. p. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Richter K, Thomas N, Claeys J et al (2017) A topical hydrogel with deferiprone and gallium-protoporphyrin targets bacterial iron metabolism and has antibiofilm activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e00481–e517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kathju S, Nistico L, Melton R et al (2016) Direct demonstration of bacterial biofilms on prosthetic mesh after ventral herniorrhaphy. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 16:45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jianfeng J, Dongdong F, Yumei Z, Qintao W (2019) Functionalized titanium implant in regulating bacteria and cell response. Int J Nanomed 14:1433–1450

  30. Miao L, Wang F, Wang L et al (2015) Physical characteristics of medical textile prostheses designed for hernia repair: a comprehensive analysis of select commercial devices. Materials 8:8148–8168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B (2018) Mesh implants for hernia repair: an update. Expert Rev Med Dev 15:735–746

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U (2013) Retrieval study at 623 human mesh explants made of polypropylene—impact of mesh class and indication for mesh removal on tissue reaction. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 19:19

    Google Scholar 

  33. Belyanski I, Tsirline VB, Montero PN, Sathishkumar R, Martin TR, Lincourt AE, Shipp J, Vertegel A, Heniford BT (2011) Lysostpahin-coated mesh prevents staphylococcal infection and significanty improves survival in a contaminated surgical field. Am Surg 77:1025–1031

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Microscopy Department, School of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University is kindly acknowledged for providing expertise in electron microscopy. KR is recipient of a CJ Martin Biomedical Early Career Fellowship (#1163634) by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. Chris Hensman is a consultant for Medtronic. Bernd Klosterhalfen is a consultant to FEG Textiltechnik and also an expert witness in the US and Australia in mesh litigation cases.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Macquarie University Hospital, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    A. S. W. Jacombs

  2. Department of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    A. Karatassas & P. Patiniott

  3. MVZ für Histologie, Zytologie Und Molekulare Diagnostik Düren GmbH, Düren, Germany

    B. Klosterhalfen

  4. Basil Hetzel Institute for Translational Health Research, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    K. Richter

  5. Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    C. Hensman

Authors
  1. A. S. W. Jacombs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Karatassas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Klosterhalfen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Patiniott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Hensman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Hensman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest directly related to this article.

Ethical approval

Due to the fact that this research uses secondary data (use of data initially collected for anoither purpose)there is no form of identifier or data linkage or results that could generate identifiable information the article was exempt from Ethics approval.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For retrospective review, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jacombs, A.S.W., Karatassas, A., Klosterhalfen, B. et al. Biofilms and effective porosity of hernia mesh: are they silent assassins?. Hernia 24, 197–204 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02063-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02063-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation