Arnolds Jezupovs1, Arnolds Jezupors, Māris Mihelsons. 1. Department of General Surgery, Latvian Maritime Medical Hospital, University of Latvia, 23 Patversmes Street, Riga, 1005, Latvia. jezupovs@tvnet.lv [corrected]
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the frequency of superficial and prosthetic mesh infection following polypropylene mesh repair of different abdominal wall hernia in individual patients and to analyze the manifestation, clinical process and outcomes in patients with prosthetic mesh infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 375 patients with 423 implanted meshes for groin, femoral, umbilical, incisional and epigastric hernias, with a mean follow-up of 15 months (range: 3-73 months). RESULTS: The total superficial infection rate was 1.65%, and the rate of mesh infection was 0.94%. There were no statistically significant differences in prosthetic mesh infection between monofilament and multifilament meshes as well as between the different repair groups of hernias. The deep incisional surgical site infection after previous operation was established as a significant risk factor for prosthetic mesh infection in incisional hernia repair (P < 0.0001). Five cases of prosthetic mesh infection were presented and analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is no correlation between the superficial and prosthetic mesh infection. There may be difficulties in determining mesh infection and to choose the right tactic. The reconvalescence in all patients with mesh infection was achieved only after removal of the infected mesh.
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the frequency of superficial and prosthetic mesh infection following polypropylene mesh repair of different abdominal wall hernia in individual patients and to analyze the manifestation, clinical process and outcomes in patients with prosthetic mesh infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 375 patients with 423 implanted meshes for groin, femoral, umbilical, incisional and epigastric hernias, with a mean follow-up of 15 months (range: 3-73 months). RESULTS: The total superficial infection rate was 1.65%, and the rate of mesh infection was 0.94%. There were no statistically significant differences in prosthetic mesh infection between monofilament and multifilament meshes as well as between the different repair groups of hernias. The deep incisional surgical site infection after previous operation was established as a significant risk factor for prosthetic mesh infection in incisional hernia repair (P < 0.0001). Five cases of prosthetic mesh infection were presented and analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is no correlation between the superficial and prosthetic mesh infection. There may be difficulties in determining mesh infection and to choose the right tactic. The reconvalescence in all patients with mesh infection was achieved only after removal of the infected mesh.
Authors: J Conze; A N Kingsnorth; J B Flament; R Simmermacher; G Arlt; C Langer; E Schippers; M Hartley; V Schumpelick Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: B J Ramshaw; P Esartia; J Schwab; E M Mason; R A Wilson; T D Duncan; J Miller; G W Lucas; J Promes Journal: Am Surg Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Ali Rastegarpour; Michael Cheung; Madhurima Vardhan; Mohamed M Ibrahim; Charles E Butler; Howard Levinson Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2016 Impact factor: 0.947
Authors: S Bringman; J Conze; D Cuccurullo; J Deprest; K Junge; B Klosterhalfen; E Parra-Davila; B Ramshaw; V Schumpelick Journal: Hernia Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 4.739