ObjectiveTo summarize the method and experience in surgical treatment for mesh infection after prosthetic patch repair of ventral hernia. MethodsThe clinical data of 16 patients with mesh infection after ventral hernia repair accepted surgical treatment in our department from June 2007 to May 2010 were analyzed retrospectively. There were 10 males and 6 females, the age range from 24 to 73 years with an average 45.2 years. The patients with mesh infection included 11 cases of infection after incisional hernia repair, 4 cases of infection after abdominal wall defects repair caused by abdominal wall tumor resection, 1 mesh infection combine with urinary fistula caused by parastomal hernia of ileal neobladder repaired by using prosthetic patch. Clinical manifestation included mesh exposion, abscess, chronic sinus, and enterocutaneous fistula. All patients accepted local treatment of change dressing by primary operative surgeon, but the wounds didn’t heal about 3 to 24 months. Then the patients performed radical removal of infected mesh and abdominal wall reconstruction. ResultsAll patients accepted affected mesh removal successfully. Five patients performed abdominal wall reconstruction by using components separation technique. Four cases accepted abdominal wall repair by using polypropylene mesh. Five patients performed abdominal wall repair by using human acelluar dermal matrix. One case accepted change dressing and vacuum aspiration on the infected wound surface without reconstruction. And one case closed the wound immediately after infected mesh removal. The postoperative hospitalization time was 9 to 25 d (average 14 d). Thirteen patients recovered with primary wound healing. The other 3 cases recovered with second healing by local change dressing. All patients were followed up from 6 to 34 months (average 22 months), no abdominal wall hernia recurrence occurred. ConclusionsIt is very difficult to deal with mesh infection after prosthetic patch repair of abdominal wall hernia or defect. The surgical treatment should be done according to specific condition of each individual so as to acquire satisfied results.
ObjectiveTo summarize the surgical experience of perineal hernia (PH) repairment after a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) with synthetic mesh.MethodsThe clinical data of 4 cases of PH after APR from 2009 to 2015 underwent surgery were analyzed retrospectively. We applied synthetic mesh for the reconstruction of the pelvic floor.ResultsAll of the 4 cases recovered smoothly, with no complication happened. The blood loss during the operation was 50–100 mL, the operative time was 1.0–1.5 hours, the postoperative time of getting out of bed was delayed to 5–7 days after the operation and discharged after 10–14 days. Patients were advised to use transperineal bandages or rigid underpants to lift up the perineum to reduce tension after discharge. No recurrence of perineal hernia or the tumor was found on physical examination and abdominal pelvic CT scan during the 24-month follow-up.ConclusionsIt brings better effect and less trauma after the operation by using transperineal repair of PH with synthetic mesh. We suggest that this technique should probably be the first choice for treating an uncomplicated PH that occurs after a laparoscopic APR.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of biological mesh (BM) and non-absorbable synthetic mesh (SM) on the risks of recurrence, complications, and cost-effectiveness after ventral hernia repair. MethodsThe publicly published related researches of BM versus SM for ventral hernia repair were searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM databases from the establishment of the databases to August 1, 2021. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the literatures were screened and the data were extracted, and the data that met the conditions were merged and analyzed. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan5.4.1 software. ResultsA total of 26 studies with 3 259 patients were included, including 1 388 patients in the BM group and 1 871 in the SM group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the recurrence, surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, reoperation rates, and medical costs in the BM group were higher than those in the SM group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the patch infection, seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, and readmission rates between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionsSM during ventral hernia repair is better than BM on postoperative recurrence, surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, reoperation, etc., and could reduce medical costs. In the future, it is tried to use more SM in patients with complicated ventral hernia such as cleaning pollution and contaminated environment.