Open and Laparo-Endoscopic Repair of Incarcerated Abdominal Wall Hernias by the Use of Biological and Biosynthetic Meshes

Hernia Mesh Complications: Management of Mesh Infections and Enteroprosthetic Fistula

The potential consequences of mesh infection mandate careful consideration of surgical approach, mesh selection, and preoperative patient optimization when planning for ventral hernia repair. Intraperitoneal mesh, microporous or laminar mesh, and multifilament mesh typically require explantation, whereas macroporous, monofilament mesh in an extraperitoneal position is often salvageable. Delayed presentation of mesh infection should raise the suspicion for enteroprosthetic fistula when intraperitoneal mesh is present. When mesh excision is necessary, the surgeon must carefully consider both the risk of recurrent infection as well as hernia recurrence when deciding on single-stage definitive reconstruction versus primary closure with delayed reconstruction.

The Association of Polish Surgeons (APS) clinical guidelines for the use of laparoscopy in the management of abdominal emergencies. Part I

Introduction

Over the past three decades, almost every type of abdominal surgery has been performed and refined using the laparoscopic technique. Surgeons are applying it for more procedures, which not so long ago were performed only in the classical way. The position of laparoscopic surgery is therefore well established, and in many operations it is currently the recommended and dominant method.

Aim

The aim of the preparation of these guidelines was to concisely summarize the current knowledge on laparoscopy in acute abdominal diseases for the purposes of the continuous training of surgeons and to create a reference for opinions.

Material and methods

The development of these recommendations is based on a review of the available literature from the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases from 1985 to 2022, with particular emphasis on systematic reviews and clinical recommendations of recognized scientific societies. Recommendations were formulated in a directive form and evaluated by a group of experts using the Delphi method.

Results and conclusions

There are 63 recommendations divided into 12 sections: diagnostic laparoscopy, perforated ulcer, acute pancreatitis, incarcerated hernia, acute cholecystitis, acute appendicitis, acute mesenteric ischemia, abdominal trauma, bowel obstruction, diverticulitis, laparoscopy in pregnancy, and postoperative complications requiring emergency surgery. Each recommendation was supported by scientific evidence and supplemented with expert comments. The guidelines were created on the initiative of the Videosurgery Chapter of the Association of Polish Surgeons and are recommended by the national consultant in the field of general surgery. The first part of the guidelines covers 5 sections and the following challenges for surgical practice: diagnostic laparoscopy, perforated ulcer, acute pancreatitis, incarcerated hernia and acute cholecystitis. Contraindications for laparoscopy and the ERAS program are discussed.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

Biomimetic collagen/elastin meshes for ventral hernia repair in a rat model

Ventral hernia repair remains a major clinical need. Herein, we formulated a type I collagen/elastin crosslinked blend (CollE) for the fabrication of biomimetic meshes for ventral hernia repair. To evaluate the effect of architecture on the performance of the implants, CollE was formulated both as flat sheets (CollE Sheets) and porous scaffolds (CollE Scaffolds). The morphology, hydrophylicity and in vitro degradation were assessed by SEM, water contact angle and differential scanning calorimetry, respectively. The stiffness of the meshes was determined using a constant stretch rate uniaxial tensile test, and compared to that of native tissue. CollE Sheets and Scaffolds were tested in vitro with human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (h-BM-MSC), and finally implanted in a rat ventral hernia model. Neovascularization and tissue regeneration within the implants was evaluated at 6weeks, by histology, immunofluorescence, and q-PCR. It was found that CollE Sheets and Scaffolds were not only biomechanically sturdy enough to provide immediate repair of the hernia defect, but also promoted tissue restoration in only 6weeks. In fact, the presence of elastin enhanced the neovascularization in both sheets and scaffolds. Overall, CollE Scaffolds displayed mechanical properties more closely resembling those of native tissue, and induced higher gene expression of the entire marker genes tested, associated with de novo matrix deposition, angiogenesis, adipogenesis and skeletal muscles, compared to CollE Sheets. Altogether, this data suggests that the improved mechanical properties and bioactivity of CollE Sheets and Scaffolds make them valuable candidates for applications of ventral hernia repair.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Due to the elevated annual number of ventral hernia repair in the US, the lack of successful grafts, the design of innovative biomimetic meshes has become a prime focus in tissue engineering, to promote the repair of the abdominal wall, avoid recurrence. Our meshes (CollE Sheets and Scaffolds) not only showed promising mechanical performance, but also allowed for an efficient neovascularization, resulting in new adipose and muscle tissue formation within the implant, in only 6weeks. In addition, our meshes allowed for the use of the same surgical procedure utilized in clinical practice, with the commercially available grafts. This study represents a significant step in the design of bioactive acellular off-the-shelf biomimetic meshes for ventral hernia repair.