Partial removal of infected parietal meshes is a safe procedure.

INTRODUCTION: Open tension-free hernioplasty using prosthetic meshes dramatically reduced recurrence rates after hernia or incisional hernia repair and has become the rule. Mesh infections (MI) are the major complication of prosthetic material. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of partial removal of mesh (PRM) therapy in the treatment of MI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to April 2010, from a prospective database, we retrospectively selected patients who underwent surgery for MI. We studied the epidemiological data (sex, age, obesity, diabetes, smoking), the operating time of the initial intervention, the presence of intestinal injuries during the first intervention, the average interval between initial surgical procedure and MI, the location of the hernia, the average size of the hernia, type of mesh used, the position of the mesh, type of surgery performed, the number through interventions required to achieve a cure, the cumulative duration of hospital stay and hernia recurrence rates. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were supported for a MI in our institution. There were 9 women (36 %) and 16 men (64 %). The median age was 59 years (range 37-78). There were 4 inguinal hernias (16 %), 15 incisional hernias (60 %) and 6 multirecurrent incisional hernias (24 %). It was performed a PRM in 92 % of cases (n = 23), a total excision of the prosthesis in 4 % of cases (n = 1) and no removal of prosthesis in 4 % of cases (n = 1). The average number of reoperations before healing was 1 (range 1-5). The mean cumulative duration of hospitalization until healing was 9.5 days (range 2-43). No visceral resection was performed. CONCLUSION: PRM is feasible in most cases allowing first to spare the capital parietal patients and secondly to avoid major surgery. In case of failure, total removal of the mesh can be discussed.

[Should a laparoscopy be necessary in case of infertility with normal tubes at hysterosalpingography?]. / Peut-on réellement se passer de la cœlioscopie en cas d'infertilité a trompes normales en hystérosalpingographie ?

The aetiological assessment of an infertile couple includes several complementary biological and morphological examinations. Initial exploration of the female genital tract requires the performance of pelvic ultrasound and hysterosalpingography. The value of systematic laparoscopy in infertility assessment is still subject to debate. The aim of the present review is to evaluate arguments against the systematic use of laparoscopy and to define the place of the other tests as Chlamydia Trachomatis serology, hysterosalpingosonography and MR-IRM. In our opinion, laparoscopy is of course indicated in infertility assessments not only when anomalies are revealed by hysterosalpingography but also in the following circumstances: past history of infection (especially a positive Chlamydia antibody blood test) and/or pelvic surgery (a significant risk of adhesions), unexplained secondary infertility, unexplained infertility after the age of 38 (when choosing between artificial insemination and direct enrolment in an IVF programme) and failure of 3 cycles of good-quality intra-uterine inseminations (with ovarian stimulation and a sufficient number of spermatozoids).