H Yang1, Y Xiong1, J Chen2, Y Shen1. 1. Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, The Capital Medical University Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Jingyuan Road No.5, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100043, China. 2. Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, The Capital Medical University Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Jingyuan Road No.5, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100043, China. chenjiejoe@sina.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We present a review of our 10-year experience in managing patients with mesh infection following hernioplasty and analyze the occurrence of known predisposing factors. METHODS: We analyzed 392 cases of mesh infection treated at our center between 2007 and 2018 after a preoperative work-up. (Thirty-one patients underwent the primary hernia repair procedure at our hospital, whereas the others underwent the primary surgery at other local centers and were referred to our center.) The method of infected mesh removal (open or laparoscopic) was selected depending on the primary surgical approach. Open repair involved the excision of the mesh, infected tissue, and sinus (if present). The laparoscopic approach was used to identify the abscess, excise the mesh, and allow drainage into the preperitoneal space. RESULTS: The operative course in all patients was uneventful. A second surgery to extract the residual mesh around the pubic bone was performed in 7 patients. Hernia recurred in 29 patients after mesh removal. The discharge culture results were positive in 193 patients. Of these, Staphylococcus spp. was identified as the causative organism in 126 patients. Risk factors for mesh infection, including obesity, smoking, and diabetes, were identified in 182 (46.5%), 154 (39.3%), and 35 (8.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended the approach of mesh removal is tailored as per the primary hernioplasty method. We analyzed the occurrence of risk factors for mesh infection in this study, but further studies are needed to develop a predictive model that is both internally and externally validated to evaluate the probability of mesh infection.
PURPOSE: We present a review of our 10-year experience in managing patients with mesh infection following hernioplasty and analyze the occurrence of known predisposing factors. METHODS: We analyzed 392 cases of mesh infection treated at our center between 2007 and 2018 after a preoperative work-up. (Thirty-one patients underwent the primary hernia repair procedure at our hospital, whereas the others underwent the primary surgery at other local centers and were referred to our center.) The method of infected mesh removal (open or laparoscopic) was selected depending on the primary surgical approach. Open repair involved the excision of the mesh, infected tissue, and sinus (if present). The laparoscopic approach was used to identify the abscess, excise the mesh, and allow drainage into the preperitoneal space. RESULTS: The operative course in all patients was uneventful. A second surgery to extract the residual mesh around the pubic bone was performed in 7 patients. Hernia recurred in 29 patients after mesh removal. The discharge culture results were positive in 193 patients. Of these, Staphylococcus spp. was identified as the causative organism in 126 patients. Risk factors for mesh infection, including obesity, smoking, and diabetes, were identified in 182 (46.5%), 154 (39.3%), and 35 (8.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended the approach of mesh removal is tailored as per the primary hernioplasty method. We analyzed the occurrence of risk factors for mesh infection in this study, but further studies are needed to develop a predictive model that is both internally and externally validated to evaluate the probability of mesh infection.