Advertisement

European Surgery

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 56–58 | Cite as

Mesh technologies and challenges in modern hernia surgery and abdominal wall repair

  • Alexander H. Petter-PuchnerEmail author
  • Simone Gruber-Blum
  • Heinz Redl
  • Karl S. Glaser
  • René H. Fortelny
original article

Summary

Hernia surgery is a rapidly evolving field, characterized by an abundance of mesh and fixation materials. This article aims at providing an overview of the most recent and urgent developments in mesh and scaffold technologies.

Keywords

Hernia repair Mesh technology Biologic collagen implants Synthetic absorbable scaffolds Perspectives in implantology 

Notes

Conflict of interest

A.H. Petter-Puchner, S. Gruber-Blum, H. Redl, K.S. Glaser, and R.H. Fortelny declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Sun P, Cheng X, Deng S, Hu Q, Sun Y, Zheng Q. Mesh fixation with glue versus suture for chronic pain and recurrence in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; . doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010814.pub2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Kuthe A, Hukauf M, Mayer F, Fortelny R, Schug-Pass C. TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair-register-based comparison of the outcome. Surg Endosc. 2017; . doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5416-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tandon A, Pathak S, Lyons NJ, Nunes QM, Daniels IR, Smart NJ. Meta-analysis of closure of the fascial defect during laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2016;103(12):1598–607. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haskins IN, Voeller GR, Stoikes NF, Webb DL, Chandler RG, Phillips S, Poulose BK, Rosen MJ. Onlay with adhesive use compared to Sublay mesh placement in ventral hernia repair: was chevrel right? An Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative Analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2017; . doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.01.048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azar FK, Crawford TC, Poruk KE, Farrow N, Cornell P, Nadra O, Azoury SC, Soares KC, Cooney CM, Eckhauser FE. Ventral hernia repair in patients with abdominal loss of domain: an observational study of one institution’s experience. Hernia. 2017; . doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1576-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elstner KE, Read JW, Rodriguez-Acevedo O, Ho-Shon K, Magnussen J, Ibrahim N. Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum complementing chemical component relaxation in complex ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2016; doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5194-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blair LJ, Cox TC, Huntington CR, Groene SA, Prasad T, Lincourt AE, Kercher KW, Heniford BT, Augenstein VA. The effect of component separation technique on quality of life (QOL) and surgical outcomes in complex open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). Surg Endosc. 2016; . doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5382-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chamieh J, Tan WH, Ramirez R, Nohra E, Apakama C, Symons W. Synthetic versus biologic mesh in single-stage repair of complex abdominal wall defects in a contaminated field. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016; doi: 10.1089/sur.2016.106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Majumder A, Winder JS, Wen Y, Pauli EM, Belyansky I, Novitsky YW. Comparative analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh outcomes in contaminated hernia repairs. Surgery. 2016;160(4):828–38. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.04.041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruber-Blum S, Brand J, Keibl C, Fortelny RH, Redl H, Mayer F, Petter-Puchner AH. Abdominal wall reinforcement: biologic vs. degradable synthetic devices. Hernia. 2016; 28012032. doi: 10.1007/s10029-016-1556-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petter-Puchner AH, Fortelny RH, Silic K, Brand J, Gruber-Blum S, Redl H. Biologic hernia implants in experimental intraperitoneal onlay mesh plasty repair: the impact of proprietary collagen processing methods and fibrin sealant application on tissue integration. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(10):3245–52. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1700-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scott JR, Deeken CR, Martindale RG, Rosen MJ. Evaluation of a fully absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate/absorbable barrier composite mesh in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3691–701. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5057-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Söderbäck H, Mahteme H, Hellman P, Sandblom G. Prophylactic resorbable synthetic mesh to prevent wound dehiscence and incisional hernia in high high-risk laparotomy: a pilot study of using TIGR matrix mesh. Front Surg. 2016;18(3):28. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guillaume O, Park J, Monforte X, Gruber-Blum S, Redl H, Petter-Puchner A, Teuschl AH. Fabrication of silk mesh with enhanced cytocompatibility: preliminary in vitro investigation toward cell-based therapy for hernia repair. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016;27(2):37. doi: 10.1007/s10856-015-5648-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jewell M, Daunch W, Bengtson B, Mortarino E. The development of SERI® Surgical Scaffold, an engineered biological scaffold. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015;1358(26376101):44–55. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander H. Petter-Puchner
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Simone Gruber-Blum
    • 1
    • 2
  • Heinz Redl
    • 1
  • Karl S. Glaser
    • 2
  • René H. Fortelny
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical TraumatologyAustrian Cluster for Tissue RegenerationViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of General, Visceral and Oncological SurgeryWilhelminenspitalViennaAustria
  3. 3.Sigmund Freud Private UniversityViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations