Emmanuel E Sadava1,2, Camila Bras Harriott3, Cristian A Angeramo3, Francisco Schlottmann3. 1. Department of Surgery, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. esadava@hospitalaleman.com. 2. Division of Abdominal Wall Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. esadava@hospitalaleman.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of synthetic mesh in contaminated fields is controversial. In the last decade, published data have grown in this matter suggesting favorable outcomes. However, multiple variables and scenarios that influence the results still make difficult to obtain convincing recommendations. METHODS: We performed a review of relevant available data in English regarding the use of synthetic meshes in contaminated abdominal wall surgery using the Medline database. Articles including patients undergoing ventral hernia in contaminated fields were included for analysis. RESULTS: Most studies support the use of synthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields, as they have shown lower recurrence rate and similar wound morbidity. Although no mesh seems ideal in this setting, most surgeons advocate for the use of reduced-in-weight polypropylene mesh. Sublay location of the prosthesis associated with complete fascial closure appears to offer better results in these patients. In addition, current evidence suggests that the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh when performing a stoma or for stoma reversal incisional hernias might be beneficial. CONCLUSION: A better understanding of surgical site occurrences and its prevention, as well as the introduction of new reduced-in-weight meshes have allowed using synthetic meshes in a contaminated field. Although the use of mesh has indeed shown promising results in these patients, the surgical team should still balance pros and cons at the time of placing synthetics in contaminated fields.
INTRODUCTION: The use of synthetic mesh in contaminated fields is controversial. In the last decade, published data have grown in this matter suggesting favorable outcomes. However, multiple variables and scenarios that influence the results still make difficult to obtain convincing recommendations. METHODS: We performed a review of relevant available data in English regarding the use of synthetic meshes in contaminated abdominal wall surgery using the Medline database. Articles including patients undergoing ventral hernia in contaminated fields were included for analysis. RESULTS: Most studies support the use of synthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields, as they have shown lower recurrence rate and similar wound morbidity. Although no mesh seems ideal in this setting, most surgeons advocate for the use of reduced-in-weight polypropylene mesh. Sublay location of the prosthesis associated with complete fascial closure appears to offer better results in these patients. In addition, current evidence suggests that the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh when performing a stoma or for stoma reversal incisional hernias might be beneficial. CONCLUSION: A better understanding of surgical site occurrences and its prevention, as well as the introduction of new reduced-in-weight meshes have allowed using synthetic meshes in a contaminated field. Although the use of mesh has indeed shown promising results in these patients, the surgical team should still balance pros and cons at the time of placing synthetics in contaminated fields.
Authors: Arielle E Kanters; David M Krpata; Jeffrey A Blatnik; Yuri M Novitsky; Michael J Rosen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jacqueline J Choi; Nandini C Palaniappa; Kai B Dallas; Tamara B Rudich; Modesto J Colon; Celia M Divino Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sambit Sahoo; Ivy N Haskins; Li-Ching Huang; David M Krpata; Kathleen A Derwin; Benjamin K Poulose; Michael J Rosen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Emmanuel E Sadava; David M Krpata; Yue Gao; Yuri W Novitsky; Michael J Rosen Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jeremy Warren; Shivani S Desai; Nicole D Boswell; Benjamin H Hancock; Hamza Abbad; Joseph A Ewing; Alfredo M Carbonell; William S Cobb Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 6.113