Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) is a safe and effective procedure in the treatment of large incisional hernia (size > 10 cm in width or length) with loss of domain (LIHLD). There is no consensus in the literature on the amount of gas that must be insufflated in a PPP program or even how long it should be maintained. We describe a technique for calculating the hernia sac volume (HSV) and abdominal cavity volume (ACV) based on abdominal computerized tomography (ACT) scanning that eliminates the need for subjective criteria for inclusion in a PPP program and shows the amount of gas that must be insufflated into the abdominal cavity in the PPP program. Our technique is indicated for all patients with large or recurrent incisional hernias evaluated by a senior surgeon with suspected LIHLD. We reviewed our experience from 2001 to 2008 of 23 consecutive hernia surgical procedures of LIHLD undergoing preoperative evaluation with CT scanning and PPP. An ACT was required in all patients with suspected LIHLD in order to determine HSV and ACV. The PPP was performed only if the volume ratio HSV/ACV (VR = HSV/ACV) was>or=25% (VR >or= 25%). We have performed this procedure on 23 patients, with a mean age of 55.6 years (range 31-83). There were 16 women and 7 men with an average age of 55.6 years (range 31-83), and a mean BMI of 38.5 kg/m(2) (range 23-55.2). Almost all patients (21 of 23 patients-91.30%) were overweight; 43.5% (10 patients) were severely obese (obese class III). The mean calculated volumes for ACV and HSV were 9,410 ml (range 6,060-19,230 ml) and 4,500 ml (range 1,850-6,600 ml), respectively. The PPP is performed by permanent catheter placed in a minor surgical procedure. The total amount of CO(2) insufflated ranged from 2,000 to 7,000 ml (mean 4,000 ml). Patients required a mean of 10 PPP sessions (range 4-18) to achieve the desired volume of gas (that is the same volume that was calculated for the hernia sac). Since PPP sessions were performed once a day, 4-18 days were needed for preoperative preparation with PPP. The mean VR was 36% (ranged from 26 to 73%). We conclude that ACT provides objective data for volume calculation of both hernia sac and abdominal cavity and also for estimation of the volume of gas that should be insufflated into the abdominal cavity in PPP.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The early outcomes of abdominal wall reconstruction with polyvinylidene (PVDF) mesh in the infected setting: video presentation Aim The use of synthetic mesh to repair infected defects of the abdominal wall remains controversial. PVDF mesh was introduced in 2002 as an alternative to polypropylene, with the advantages of improved biostability, lowered bending stiffness, and minimum tissue response. The study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of using PVDF mesh to treat infected abdominal wall defects in the elective setting. Material and Methods Video presents the technical aspects and some of the outcomes of patients included in a prospective clinical trial designed to evaluate the short and mid-term outcomes of 38 patients submitted to abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of active mesh infection and/or enteric fistulas (AI) Patients were submitted to single-staged repairs, using onlay PVDF mesh reinforcement to treat their defects. Results The technical aspects of the operation, and the management of complications such as wound breakdown, exposed mesh and post-operative seromas are shown in this short video. The early and late outcomes are presented for discussion. Conclusions The use of PVDF mesh in the infected setting presented very favorable results with a low incidence of wound infection.

Aim The use of synthetic mesh to repair infected defects of the abdominal wall remains controversial. PVDF mesh was introduced in 2002 as an alternative to polypropylene, with the advantages of improved biostability, lowered bending stiffness, and minimum tissue response. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of using PVDF mesh to treat infected abdominal wall defects in the elective setting. Material and Methods A prospective clinical trial started in 2016 and designed to evaluate the short and mid-term outcomes of 38 patients submitted to abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of active mesh infection and/or enteric fistulas (AI) when compared to a group of 38 patients submitted to clean ventral hernia repairs (CC). Patients were submitted to single-staged repairs, using onlay PVDF mesh reinforcement to treat their defects. Results Groups had comparable demographic characteristics. The AI group had more previous abdominal operations and a longer operative and anesthesia time. At 30-days, surgical site occurrences were observed in 18 (47.4%) AI vs. 17 (44.7%) CC; surgical site infection occurred in 4 (10.4%) AI vs. 6 (15.8%) CC, and a higher number of procedural interventions were required in the CC group, 15.8% AI vs. 28.9% CC. At 6-months follow-up, no chronic infections or hernia recurrences were observed in both groups. Conclusions The use of PVDF mesh in the infected setting presented very favorable results with a low incidence of wound infection.

Aim Mesh infection represents a significant concern due to its terrible consequences. Mesh sinus, infected seromas, mesh extrusion, and mesh-related enteric fistulas are common complications associated with synthetic mesh. This study aimed to review the microbiota of mesh infection in a series of 100 patients submitted to mesh explantation. Material and Methods We reviewed the charts of patients presenting with a history of mesh infection lasting six months or more after mesh placement. All patients submitted to further abdominal wall repair with complete removal of the infected mesh and presenting a positive culture were included. The microbiota analysis was based on positive cultures obtained from the fluids and tissues surrounding the mesh or a positive culture of the mesh itself. Microorganisms were divided into gram-positive or gram-negative, aerobic or anaerobic, and fungi. Results Pure aerobic gram-positive cultures were encountered in 50% of the patients, followed by a combination of aerobic gram-positive/gram-negative (9%) and pure gram-negative cultures (6%). Anaerobes were recovered from 31% of patients. Fungi were recovered from 6%. Staphylococcus aureus was identified in 64% of cultures, with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus present in 42% and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus in 22%. Among aerobic gram-negative infections, six (17%) were caused by multi-resistant bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis, Acinetobacter baumanii, Klebsiella pneumoniae complex, and Enterobacter cloacae complex. Conclusions Pure Staphylococcus aureus infections, occurring in 29%, accounted for most single bacterial infections. Gram-negative infections and anaerobes were commonly encountered in polymicrobial infections. Most fungi cultures occurred in patients with enteric fistulas.