Outcomes from laparoscopic versus robotic mesh removal after inguinal hernia repair

Huynh, Desmond; Feng, Xiaoxi; Fadaee, Negin; Gonsalves, Nicholas; Towfigh, Shirin

doi:10.1007/s00464-021-08963-4

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, meshes placed as an onlay were removed via open technique and those placed as a sublay were removed via laparoscopic or robotic approach. Our techniques have been previously described (15,16). Sixteen (57%) of the mesh removals among patients with MII were performed as an outpatient.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients With Systemic Reaction to Their Hernia Mesh: An Introduction to Mesh Implant Illness

Fadaee¹,

Huynh

Khanmohammed³

et al. 2023

J. Abdom. Wall Surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In our practice, we have noticed an increased number of patients requiring mesh removal due to a systemic reaction to their implant. We present our experience in diagnosing and treating a subpopulation of patients who require mesh removal due to a possible mesh implant illness (MII). All patients who underwent mesh removal for indication of mesh reaction were captured from a hernia database. Data extraction focused on the patients’ predisposing medical conditions, presenting symptoms suggestive of mesh implant illness, types of implants to which reaction occurred, and postoperative outcome after mesh removal. Over almost 7 years, 165 patients had mesh removed. Indication for mesh removal was probable MII in 28 (17%). Most were in females (60%), average age was 46 years, with average pre-operative pain score 5.4/10. All patients underwent complete mesh removal. Sixteen (57%) required tissue repair of their hernia; 4 (14%) had hybrid mesh implanted. Nineteen (68%) had improvement and/or resolution of their MII symptoms within the first month after removal. We present insight into a unique but rising incidence of patients who suffer from systemic reaction following mesh implantation. Predisposing factors include female sex, history of autoimmune disorder, and multiple medical and environmental allergies and sensitivities. Presenting symptoms included spontaneous rashes, erythema and edema over the area of implant, arthralgia, headaches, and chronic fatigue. Long-term follow up after mesh removal confirmed resolution of symptoms after mesh removal. We hope this provides greater attention to patients who present with vague, non-specific but debilitating symptoms after mesh implantation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%