Literature DB >> 23218885

Effect of surgical wound classification on biologic graft performance in complex hernia repair: an experimental study.

Karem C Harth1, Jeffrey A Blatnik, James M Anderson, Michael R Jacobs, Farhad Zeinali, Michael J Rosen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite relatively sparse data regarding their outcomes in the setting of infection, biologic grafts have gained rapid acceptance by the surgical community for complex hernia repair. These materials are heterogeneous in their procurement and processing techniques, which may ultimately have an impact in their ability to withstand infection. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of varying levels of contamination on biologic graft performance in a chronic ventral hernia animal model.
METHODS: Four commonly applied biologic grafts were used in the repair of a chronic ventral hernia rat model (n = 218). Each material was repaired in the setting of 1 of 4 surgical wound classifications (clean, clean contaminated, contaminated, dirty infected) with Staphylococcus aureus as our inoculum agent. After a 30-day survival, repairs underwent quantitative cultures, histological, and biomechanical testing.
RESULTS: Marked differences were observed in biologic graft bacterial burden, biomechanical and histological responses at 30 days. Persistent bacterial burden varied among the biologic grafts and increased with increasing wound contamination (P < .05). Delays in wound healing were observed in the contaminated and dirty infected setting (P < .05). Increasing infection weakened the biomechanical strength of repairs (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: The degree of bacterial contamination at the time of repair affected the rates of bacterial clearance, wound-healing ability, and subsequent repair strength. Material source and processing techniques might alter graft durability, biocompatibility, and ability to clear bacteria in a contaminated field. Clinical trials are warranted in contaminated settings.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23218885     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.08.064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  11 in total

Review 1.  A critical review of the in vitro and in vivo models for the evaluation of anti-infective meshes.

Authors:  O Guillaume; B Pérez Kohler; R Fortelny; H Redl; F Moriarty; R G Richards; D Eglin; A Petter Puchner
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 2.  A systematic review of synthetic and biologic materials for abdominal wall reinforcement in contaminated fields.

Authors:  Lawrence Lee; Juan Mata; Tara Landry; Kosar A Khwaja; Melina C Vassiliou; Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Biologic versus Synthetic Mesh Reinforcement: What are the Pros and Cons?

Authors:  James F FitzGerald; Anjali S Kumar
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2014-12

Review 4.  Biomaterials: so many choices, so little time. What are the differences?

Authors:  John D Hunter; Jamie A Cannon
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2014-12

5.  An experimental comparison of the effects of bacterial colonization on biologic and synthetic meshes.

Authors:  William C Cole; Eric M Balent; Pamela C Masella; Lauren N Kajiura; Karen W Matsumoto; Lisa M Pierce
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  The effects of Losartan on abdominal wall fascial healing.

Authors:  C N Criss; Y Gao; G De Silva; J Yang; J M Anderson; Y W Novitsky; H Soltanian; M J Rosen
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  A comparison of outcomes and cost in VHWG grade II hernias between Rives-Stoppa synthetic mesh hernia repair versus underlay biologic mesh repair.

Authors:  J P Fischer; M N Basta; M N Mirzabeigi; S J Kovach
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  Lessons learned from 227 biological meshes used for the surgical treatment of ventral abdominal defects.

Authors:  N Baldan; G Munegato; A Di Leo; E Lauro; E Morpurgo; S Pianigiani; D Briscolini; R Ferrara; V Fiscon; A Brolese; G De Manzoni; G Baldazzi; D Snidero; S Merigliano; F Ricci; E Laterza; R Merenda; R Gianesini
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-01-19       Impact factor: 4.739

9.  Remodeling characteristics and collagen distribution in biological scaffold materials explanted from human subjects after abdominal soft tissue reconstruction: an analysis of scaffold remodeling characteristics by patient risk factors and surgical site classifications.

Authors:  Jaime A Cavallo; Andres A Roma; Mateusz S Jasielec; Jenny Ousley; Jennifer Creamer; Matthew D Pichert; Sara Baalman; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews; Corey R Deeken
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Tolerance and long-term MRI imaging of gadolinium-modified meshes used in soft organ repair.

Authors:  Vincent Letouzey; Stéphanie Huberlant; Arnaud Cornille; Sébastien Blanquer; Olivier Guillaume; Laurent Lemaire; Xavier Garric; Renaud de Tayrac
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.