Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the macroscopic features and histologic details observed after retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction with the combination of an absorbable mesh and a permanent mesh. Methods: We have considered all patients that underwent abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with the combination of two meshes that required to be reoperated for any reason. Data was extracted from a prospective multicenter study from 2012 to 2019. Macroscopic evaluation of parietal adhesions and histological analysis were carried out in this group of patients. Results: Among 466 patients with AWR, we identified 26 patients that underwent a reoperation after abdominal wall reconstruction using absorbable and permanent mesh. In eight patients, the reoperation was related to abdominal wall issues: four patients were reoperated due to recurrence, three patients required an operation for chronic mesh infection and one patient for symptomatic bulging. A miscellanea of pathologies was the cause for reoperation in 18 patients. During the second surgical procedures made after a minimum of 3 months follow-up, a fibrous tissue between the permanent mesh covering and protecting the peritoneum was identified. This fibrous tissue facilitated blunt dissection between the permanent material and the peritoneum. Samples of this tissue were obtained for histological examination. No case of severe adhesions to the abdominal wall was seen. In four cases, the reoperation could be carried out laparoscopically with minimal adhesions from the previous procedure. Conclusions: The reoperations performed after the combination of absorbable and permanent meshes have shown that the absorbable mesh acts as a protective barrier and is replaced by a fibrous layer rich in collagen. In the cases requiring new hernia repair, the layer between peritoneum and permanent mesh could be dissected without special difficulty. Few intraperitoneal adhesions to the abdominal wall were observed, mainly filmy, easy to detach, facilitating reoperations.
Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the macroscopic features and histologic details observed after retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction with the combination of an absorbable mesh and a permanent mesh. Methods: We have considered all patients that underwent abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with the combination of two meshes that required to be reoperated for any reason. Data was extracted from a prospective multicenter study from 2012 to 2019. Macroscopic evaluation of parietal adhesions and histological analysis were carried out in this group of patients. Results: Among 466 patients with AWR, we identified 26 patients that underwent a reoperation after abdominal wall reconstruction using absorbable and permanent mesh. In eight patients, the reoperation was related to abdominal wall issues: four patients were reoperated due to recurrence, three patients required an operation for chronic mesh infection and one patient for symptomatic bulging. A miscellanea of pathologies was the cause for reoperation in 18 patients. During the second surgical procedures made after a minimum of 3 months follow-up, a fibrous tissue between the permanent mesh covering and protecting the peritoneum was identified. This fibrous tissue facilitated blunt dissection between the permanent material and the peritoneum. Samples of this tissue were obtained for histological examination. No case of severe adhesions to the abdominal wall was seen. In four cases, the reoperation could be carried out laparoscopically with minimal adhesions from the previous procedure. Conclusions: The reoperations performed after the combination of absorbable and permanent meshes have shown that the absorbable mesh acts as a protective barrier and is replaced by a fibrous layer rich in collagen. In the cases requiring new hernia repair, the layer between peritoneum and permanent mesh could be dissected without special difficulty. Few intraperitoneal adhesions to the abdominal wall were observed, mainly filmy, easy to detach, facilitating reoperations.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: C San Miguel; J Muñoz; Á Robin; A M Minaya; A Cruz; M Pérez-Flecha; J López-Monclús; D Melero; L A Blázquez; M Á García-Ureña Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Eric D Jenkins; Victoria Yom; Lora Melman; L Michael Brunt; J Christopher Eagon; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Miguel Ángel García-Ureña; Javier López-Monclús; Diego Cuccurullo; Luis Alberto Blázquez Hernando; Providencia García-Pastor; Stefano Reggio; Elena Jiménez Cubedo; Carlos San Miguel Méndez; Arturo Cruz Cidoncha; Alvaro Robin Valle de Lersundi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: S G Parker; S Halligan; M K Liang; F E Muysoms; G L Adrales; A Boutall; A C de Beaux; U A Dietz; C M Divino; M T Hawn; T B Heniford; J P Hong; N Ibrahim; K M F Itani; L N Jorgensen; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; Y Renard; D L Sanders; N J Smart; J J Torkington; A C J Windsor Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-12-25 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Ellen Peeters; Kevin W Y van Barneveld; Marc H Schreinemacher; Gert De Hertogh; Yves Ozog; Nicole Bouvy; Marc Miserez Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 2.192