A retrospective review and observations over a 16-year clinical experience on the surgical treatment of chronic mesh infection. What about replacing a synthetic mesh on the infected surgical field?

Abstract

CMI can be treated by removal of infected mesh; simultaneous mesh replacement prevents hernia recurrence and has an acceptable incidence of post-operative acute infection. Standard polypropylene mesh is a suitable material to be used in the infected surgical field as an onlay graft.

Repair of large incisional hernias. To drain or not to drain. Randomized clinical trial

“…Some authors, such as Birolini C, highlights the importance of fixing the mesh to the aponeurosis with running sutures of absorbable polyglactin to prevent the formation of dead space and complications 25 .…”

Complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of active infection and contamination: a systematic review of hernia and fistula recurrence rates

“…A total of 601 patients were included, with an average follow‐up of 26.7 months. Follow‐up was performed by clinical assessment in five studies , a combination of clinical assessment and telephone interviews in three studies and was not defined in seven studies . None of the studies gave a clear definition of hernia recurrence and only one differentiated between hernia and bulge .…”

“…A total of 1223 studies were excluded following title review, and a further 160 were removed following assessment of abstracts and papers according to the inclusion criteria. This resulted in the inclusion of 14 studies [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Review of reference lists of the screened studies identified a further two articles which met the inclusion criteria [10,28].…”

“…There was one prospective, multicentre, observational outcomes study [28] and one single-centre study of a similar design [24]. Five studies were on prospectively collected databases [10,15,18,19,25]. The remaining studies were retrospective [14,16,17,[20][21][22][23]26,27].…”

“…A total of 601 patients were included, with an average follow-up of 26.7 months. Follow-up was performed by clinical assessment in five studies [17,[22][23][24]28], a combination of clinical assessment and telephone interviews in three studies [15,18,20] and was not defined in seven studies [10,14,16,19,21,[25][26][27]. None of the studies gave a Records excluded (n = 1223) Exclusion: Nonrelevant -1030 Case report -109 Reviews -73 Non-English -11…”