Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abdominal Wall Mesh Infections

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Management of Abdominal Hernias

Abstract

While mesh implantation significantly reduces hernia recurrence, infection of the mesh is one of the most dreaded and challenging conditions in abdominal wall reconstruction. With no available national database to track each mesh recipient’s outcome, the true incidence of mesh infection is difficult to determine and likely underestimated. With the prevalence of synthetic materials used, the number of patients who will suffer such infections is likely to increase. Currently, there is no independent database tracking mesh-related complications, no mandate to follow patients for any set amount of time, and no guidelines regarding what type of mesh to use and when. This chapter focuses on mesh infections following ventral and incisional hernia repair—incidence, presentation, risk factors, microbiome, and treatment.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Poulose BK, et al. Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia. 2012;16(2):179–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sauerland S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3:CD007781.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Merkow RP, et al. Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United States. JAMA. 2015;313(5):483–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zannis J, et al. Outcome study of the surgical management of panniculitis. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68(2):194–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Itani KM, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2010;145(4):322–8; discussion 328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaafarani HM, et al. Predictors of surgical site infection in laparoscopic and open ventral incisional herniorrhaphy. J Surg Res. 2010;163(2):229–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Saxe A, et al. Simultaneous panniculectomy and ventral hernia repair following weight reduction after gastric bypass surgery: is it safe? Obes Surg. 2008;18(2):192–5; discussion 196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Albright E, et al. The component separation technique for hernia repair: a comparison of open and endoscopic techniques. Am Surg. 2011;77(7):839–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mazzocchi M, et al. Component separation technique and panniculectomy for repair of incisional hernia. Am J Surg. 2010;201:776–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zemlyak AY, et al. Comparative study of wound complications: isolated panniculectomy versus panniculectomy combined with ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2012;177(2):387–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoer J, Fischer L, Schachtrupp A. Laparotomy closure and incisional hernia prevention – what are the surgical requirements? Zentralbl Chir. 2011;136(1):42–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Korenkov M, et al. Incisional hernia repair in Germany at the crossroads: a comparison of two hospital surveys in 1995 and 2001. Zentralbl Chir. 2002;127(8):700–4; discussion 704-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Luijendijk RW, et al. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(6):392–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burger JW, et al. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):578–83; discussion 583-5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mathes T, Walgenbach M, Siegel R. Suture versus mesh repair in primary and incisional ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2016;40(4):826–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Groene SA, et al. Prospective, multi-institutional surgical and quality-of-life outcomes comparison of heavyweight, midweight, and lightweight mesh in open ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;212(6):1054–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ventral Hernia Working Group, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148(3):544–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. den Hartog D, et al. Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD006438.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Funk LM, et al. Current national practice patterns for inpatient management of ventral abdominal wall hernia in the United States. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(11):4104–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Finan KR, Kilgore ML, Hawn MT. Open suture versus mesh repair of primary incisional hernias: a cost-utility analysis. Hernia. 2009;13(2):173–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F. Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1575–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wormer BA, et al. Ventral hernia repair in the western world: prospective international study demonstrates similar surgical outcomes found in Europe and USA. J Surg Res. 2013;179(2):238–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Colavita PD, et al. Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):109–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bliziotis IA, et al. Mesh-related infection after hernia repair: case report of an emerging type of foreign-body related infection. Infection. 2006;34(1):46–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hawn MT, et al. Predictors of mesh explantation after incisional hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2011;202(1):28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hawn MT, et al. Long-term follow-up of technical outcomes for incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(5):648–55, 655–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cobb WS, et al. Infection risk of open placement of intraperitoneal composite mesh. Am Surg. 2009;75(9):762–7; discussion 767-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cobb WS, et al. Open retromuscular mesh repair of complex incisional hernia: predictors of wound events and recurrence. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(4):606–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Iqbal CW, et al. Long-term outcome of 254 complex incisional hernia repairs using the modified Rives-Stoppa technique. World J Surg. 2007;31(12):2398–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Samee A, Adjepong S, Pattar J. Late onset mesh infection following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. BMJ Case Rep. 2011;2011:bcr0920114863.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Petersen S, et al. Deep prosthesis infection in incisional hernia repair: predictive factors and clinical outcome. Eur J Surg. 2001;167(6):453–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carlson MA, et al. Minimally invasive ventral herniorrhaphy: an analysis of 6,266 published cases. Hernia. 2008;12(1):9–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sharma A, et al. Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: a single centre experience of 1,242 patients over a period of 13 years. Hernia. 2011;15(2):131–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Forbes SS, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open and laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with mesh. Br J Surg. 2009;96(8):851–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tsereteli Z, et al. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) in morbidly obese patients. Hernia. 2008;12(3):233–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Oomen B. Do patients follow-up with their original surgeon when ventral hernia repairs (VHR) fail? American Hernia Society Annual Meeting; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Augenstein V, et al. Treatment of 161 consecutive synthetic mesh infections: can mesh be salvaged? In Affiliated Podium presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Americas Hernia Society, Washington, DC; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kathju S, et al. Direct demonstration of bacterial biofilms on prosthetic mesh after ventral herniorrhaphy. Surg Infect. 2015;16(1):45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zuvela M, et al. (99m)Tc-antigranulocyte antibody scintiscan versus computed tomography and ultrasound in the detection of silent mesh infection of the abdominal wall. Hell J Nucl Med. 2011;14(2):181–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stremitzer S, et al. Mesh graft infection following abdominal hernia repair: risk factor evaluation and strategies of mesh graft preservation. A retrospective analysis of 476 operations. World J Surg. 2010;34(7):1702–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Finan KR, et al. Predictors of wound infection in ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2005;190(5):676–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sanchez VM, Abi-Haidar YE, Itani KM. Mesh infection in ventral incisional hernia repair: incidence, contributing factors, and treatment. Surg Infect. 2011;12(3):205–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Martindale RG, Deveney CW. Preoperative risk reduction: strategies to optimize outcomes. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(5):1041–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cox TC, et al. The cost of preventable comorbidities on wound complications in open ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2016;206(1):214–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Evans KK, et al. Survey on ventral hernias: surgeon indications, contraindications, and management of large ventral hernias. Am Surg. 2012;78(4):388–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Simmons BP. Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control. 1983;11(4):133–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Alexander JW, Solomkin JS, Edwards MJ. Updated recommendations for control of surgical site infections. Ann Surg. 2011;253(6):1082–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Liang MK, et al. Abdominal reoperation and mesh explantation following open ventral hernia repair with mesh. Am J Surg. 2014;208(4):670–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Augenstein VA, et al. CeDAR: Carolinas equation for determining associated risks. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(4):S65–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Colavita PD, et al. External validation of a clinical prediction tool for wound infection in open ventral hernia repair (OVHR): 39th Annual International Congress of the European Hernia Society; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Basta MN, et al. Assessing the predictive accuracy of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Surgical Risk Calculator in open ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;212(2):272–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Liang MK, et al. External validation of the ventral hernia risk score for prediction of surgical site infections. Surg Infect. 2015;16(1):36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Smith CT, et al. Incidence and risk factors of incisional hernia formation following abdominal organ transplantation. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(2):398–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284(5418):1318–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bueno-Lledo J, et al. Predictors of mesh infection and explantation after abdominal wall hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2017;213(1):50–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Huntington C, et al. Inadvertent Enterotomy: Significant Consequences for the Open Ventral Hernia Patient: 1st World Congress on Abdominal Wall Hernia Surgery; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Colavita PD, Zemlyak A, Burton P, et al. The expansive cost of wound complications after ventral hernia repair. Annual Meeting of the American College of Surgeons Washington, DC; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Elek SD, Conen PE. The virulence of Staphylococcus pyogenes for man; a study of the problems of wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol. 1957;38(6):573–86.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Engelsman AF, et al. The phenomenon of infection with abdominal wall reconstruction. Biomaterials. 2007;28(14):2314–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaplan JB, et al. Enzymatic detachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(7):2633–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Sadava EE, et al. Does presoaking synthetic mesh in antibiotic solution reduce mesh infections? An experimental study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(3):562–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Birolini C, et al. A retrospective review and observations over a 16-year clinical experience on the surgical treatment of chronic mesh infection. What about replacing a synthetic mesh on the infected surgical field? Hernia. 2015;19(2):239–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hicks CW, et al. History of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) surgical site infection may not be a contraindication to ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh: a preliminary report. Hernia. 2014;18(1):65–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Brown RH, et al. Comparison of infectious complications with synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2013;205(2):182–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Jones ME, et al. Emerging resistance among bacterial pathogens in the intensive care unit–a European and North American Surveillance study (2000–2002). Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2004;3:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Huijsdens XW, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Dutch soccer team. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(10):1584–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Bode LG, et al. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):9–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Blatnik JA, et al. In vivo analysis of the morphologic characteristics of synthetic mesh to resist MRSA adherence. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(11):2139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ousley J, et al. Previous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection independent of body site increases odds of surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(2):470–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Leber GE, et al. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg. 1998;133(4):378–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Berrevoet F, et al. Infected large pore meshes may be salvaged by topical negative pressure therapy. Hernia. 2013;17(1):67–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Robinson TN, et al. Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair: events reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(12):1556–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Shah BC, et al. Not all biologics are equal! Hernia. 2011;15(2):165–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kissane NA, Itani KM. A decade of ventral incisional hernia repairs with biologic acellular dermal matrix: what have we learned? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):194S–202S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Le D, et al. Mesh choice in ventral hernia repair: so many choices, so little time. Am J Surg. 2013;205(5):602–7; discussion 607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Cevasco M, Itani KM. Ventral hernia repair with synthetic, composite, and biologic mesh: characteristics, indications, and infection profile. Surg Infect. 2012;13(4):209–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Harrell AG, et al. In vitro infectability of prosthetic mesh by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Hernia. 2006;10(2):120–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Machairas A, et al. Prosthetic repair of incisional hernia combined with elective bowel operation. Surgeon. 2008;6(5):274–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Carbonell AM, et al. Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(6):991–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Slater NJ, et al. Large contaminated ventral hernia repair using component separation technique with synthetic mesh. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(6):796e–805e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Deerenberg EB, et al. Experimental study on synthetic and biological mesh implantation in a contaminated environment. Br J Surg. 2012;99(12):1734–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. van’t Riet M, et al. Mesh repair for postoperative wound dehiscence in the presence of infection: is absorbable mesh safer than non-absorbable mesh? Hernia. 2007;11(5):409–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Muhlhofer HM, et al. Prosthetic joint infection development of an evidence-based diagnostic algorithm. Eur J Med Res. 2017;22(1):8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Tolino MJ, et al. Infections associated with prosthetic repairs of abdominal wall hernias: pathology, management and results. Hernia. 2009;13(6):631–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Chung L, Tse GH, O’Dwyer PJ. Outcome of patients with chronic mesh infection following abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia. 2014;18(5):701–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Bueno-Lledo J, et al. Partial versus complete removal of the infected mesh after abdominal wall hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;214(1):47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Mihai MM, et al. Microbial biofilms: impact on the pathogenesis of periodontitis, cystic fibrosis, chronic wounds and medical device-related infections. Curr Top Med Chem. 2015;15(16):1552–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carolinas Laparoscopic and Advanced Surgery Program, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA

    K. M. Coakley, B. T. Heniford & V. A. Augenstein

Authors
  1. K. M. Coakley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. T. Heniford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. A. Augenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. T. Heniford .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Surgeons Group of Baton Rouge of Our Lady of the Lake Physician Group, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

    Karl A. LeBlanc

  2. Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry (Emeritus), Plymouth, United Kingdom

    Andrew Kingsnorth

  3. North Devon District Hospital, Barnstaple, United Kingdom

    David L. Sanders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Coakley, K.M., Heniford, B.T., Augenstein, V.A. (2018). Abdominal Wall Mesh Infections. In: LeBlanc, K., Kingsnorth, A., Sanders, D. (eds) Management of Abdominal Hernias. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63251-3_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63251-3_40

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63250-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63251-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation