Intraperitoneal mesh devices for small midline hernias: mesh behavior in a porcine model

Abdominal wall hernia repair: from prosthetic meshes to smart materials

Hernia reconstruction is one of the most frequently practiced surgical procedures worldwide. Plastic surgery plays a pivotal role in reestablishing desired abdominal wall structure and function without the drawbacks traditionally associated with general surgery as excessive tension, postoperative pain, poor repair outcomes, and frequent recurrence. Surgical meshes have been the preferential choice for abdominal wall hernia repair to achieve the physical integrity and equivalent components of musculofascial layers. Despite the relevant progress in recent years, there are still unsolved challenges in surgical mesh design and complication settlement. This review provides a systemic summary of the hernia surgical mesh development deeply related to abdominal wall hernia pathology and classification. Commercial meshes, the first-generation prosthetic materials, and the most commonly used repair materials in the clinic are described in detail, addressing constrain side effects and rational strategies to establish characteristics of ideal hernia repair meshes. The engineered prosthetics are defined as a transit to the biomimetic smart hernia repair scaffolds with specific advantages and disadvantages, including hydrogel scaffolds, electrospinning membranes, and three-dimensional patches. Lastly, this review critically outlines the future research direction for successful hernia repair solutions by combing state-of-the-art techniques and materials.

Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats

Purpose:

To compare four types of mesh regarding visceral adhesions, inflammatory response and incorporation.

Methods:

Sixty Wistar rats were divided into four groups, with different meshes implanted intraperitoneally: polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE group); polypropylene with polydioxanone and oxidized cellulose (PCD); polypropylene (PM) and polypropylene with silicone (PMS). The variables analyzed were: area covered by adhesions, incorporation of the mesh and inflammatory reaction (evaluated histologically and by COX2 immunochemistry).

Results:

The PMS group had the lowest adhesion area (63.1%) and grade 1 adhesions. The ePTFE and PM groups presented almost the total area of their surface covered by adherences (99.8% and 97.7% respectively) The group ePTFE had the highest percentage of area without incorporation (42%; p <0.001) with no difference between the other meshes. The PMS group had the best incorporation rate. And the histological analysis revealed that the inflammation scores were significantly different.

Conclusions:

The PM mesh had higher density of adherences, larger area of adherences, adherences to organs and percentage of incorporation. ePTFE had the higher area of adherences and lower incorporation. The PMS mesh performed best in the inflammation score, had a higher incorporation and lower area of adherences, and it was considered the best type of mesh.

A multicenter prospective study of patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal positioning using the monofilament polyester composite ventral patch: interim results of the PANACEA study

Purpose

This study assessed the recurrence rate and other safety and efficacy parameters following ventral hernia repair with a polyester composite prosthesis (Parietex™ Composite Ventral Patch [PCO-VP]).

Patients and methods

A single-arm, multicenter prospective study of 126 patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair with the PCO-VP was performed. Patient outcomes were assessed at discharge and at 10 days, 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperative.

Results

All patients had hernioplasty for umbilical (n = 110, 87.3%) or epigastric hernia (n = 16, 12.7%). Mean hernia diameter was 1.8 ± 0.8 cm. Mean operative time was 36.2 ±15.6 minutes, with a mean mesh positioning time of 8.1 ± 3.4 minutes. Surgeons reported satisfaction with mesh ease of use in 95% of surgeries. The cumulative hernia recurrence rate at 1 year was 2.8% (3/106). Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores showed improvement from 2.1 ± 2.0 at preoperative baseline to 0.5 ± 0.7 at 1 month postoperative (P < 0.001), and this low pain level was maintained at 12 months postsurgery (P < 0.001). The mean global Carolina’s Comfort Scale^® (CCS) score improved postoperatively from 3.8 ± 6.2 at 1 month to 1.6 ± 3.5 at 6 months (P < 0.001). One patient was unsatisfied with the procedure.

Conclusion

This 1-year interim analysis using PCO-VP for primary umbilical and epigastric defects shows promising results in terms of mesh ease of use, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. Recurrence rate is low, but, as laparoscopic evaluation shows a need for patch repositioning in some cases, an accurate surgical technique remains of utmost importance.