Abstract
Controversies still exist about the indications in using the different materials and principally about the biological ones. Potential or certain contamination of the surgical wound poses a dilemma as the use of nonabsorbable synthetic material historically is considered contraindicated, given the risk of postoperative infectious complicationsand need for mesh removal. The introduction of biological prosthesis (BP) has provided an alternative. Either allograft or xenograft, BP might be better able to tolerate bacterial contamination and have a lower incidence of surgical site infection. Furthermore, the complexity of hernias could derive also from tissue loss, dimensions, anatomic position and clinical or pharmacological data: based on pathophysiological characteristics, BP could act as a valid alternative not only in contaminated fields. It is likely to extend their possibilities of use in uncontaminated fields: the BP remodelling process would be favoured not only by its intrinsic characteristics but also by a less pronounced inflammatory reaction in respect to their use in contaminated fields. In contrast to current nonabsorbable prosthetic repairs, where the prosthesis is intended to strengthen the defect life-long, the extracellular matrix of BP implanted into the host has a direct strengthening function only initially. Subsequentially, the matrix is gradually degraded while inducing neovascularization and colonization by host cells that progressively cause a site-specific remodelling process until the reconstruction of a new and mature autologous fascia is complete. The proposed advantage of BP is that the patient’s immune cells can infiltrate the material to defend against the bacterial load and eventually replace the biologic mesh with the host tissue. The best operative solution for hernia repair in clean, clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds and in emergency hernia surgery remains not clear. However, the price of biologic grafts has caused an alarming increase in the cost of abdominal reconstructions. Actually, despite the risk of infections, mesh reinforcement continues to play a critical role in hernia repair, and biologic materials are often promoted for the use in “difficult” situations, especially those with contaminated or infected fields.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Atema JJ, de Vries FE, Boermeester MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the repair of potentially contaminated and contaminated abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg. 2016;212:982–95.
Gurrado A, Franco IF, Lissidini G, et al. Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study. Hernia. 2015;19:259–66.
Campanelli G, Catena F, Ansaloni L. Prosthetic abdominal wall hernia repair in emergency surgery: from polypropylene to biological meshes. World J Emerg Surg. 2008;3:33.
Rosen MJ, Bauer JJ, Harmaty M, Carbonell AM, et al. Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of the recurrence, surgical site infection and quality of life after contaminated ventral hernia repair using biosynthetic absorbable mesh. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):205–11.
Coccolini F, Agresta F, Bassi A, Catena F, et al. Italian biological prosthesis work-group (IBPWG): proposal for a decisional model in using biological prosthesis. World J Emerg Surg. 2012;7:34.
Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, et al. New “biological” meshes: the need for a register. The EHS registry for biological prostheses. Hernia. 2009;13:103–8.
Gruber-blum S, Brand J, Keibl C, et al. Abdominal wall reinforcement: biologic vs. degradable synthetic devices. Hernia. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1556-9.
Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, et al. Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3 year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s repair with polypropilene mesh versus Surgisis inguinal hernia matrix. Am J Surg. 2009;198:303–12.
Fang Z, Feng R, Zhou J, et al. Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85(12):910–6.
Ansaloni L, Catena F, D'Alessandro L. Prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing Lichtenstein’s repair of inguinal hernia with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis gold soft tissue graft: preliminary results. Acta Biomed. 2003;74(Suppl 2):10–4.
Bochicchio GV, Jain A, McGonigal K, et al. Biologic vs synthetic inguinal hernia repair: 1-year results of a randomized double-blinded trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(4):751–7.
Bellows CF, Shadduck P, Helton WS, et al. Early report of a randomized comparative clinical trial of Strattice™ reconstructive tissue matrix to lightweight synthetic mesh in the repair of inguinal hernias. Hernia. 2014;18(2):221–30.
Majumder A, Winder JS, Wen Y, et al. Comparative analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh outcomes in contaminated hernia repairs. Surgery. 2016;160:828–38.
Breuring K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of literature and reccomandations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148:544–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lafranceschina, S., Catena, F., Ansaloni, L., Testini, M. (2018). Biological Prosthesis in Inguinal Hernia Repair. In: Campanelli, G. (eds) The Art of Hernia Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72626-7_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72626-7_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72624-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72626-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)