Re-do surgery after prosthetic abdominal wall repair: intraoperative findings of mesh-related complications.

INTRODUCTION: Mesh repair is one of the most popular technique for the treatment of abdominal wall hernias, resulting in lower recurrence rates. However, it is associated with a high risk of mesh-related complications. The aim of the present study is to assess the impact of biomaterials on the intra-abdominal organs, in terms of adhesions and visceral complications, in a series of patients undergoing re-do surgery at our abdominal wall unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the clinical records of 301 patients who undergone laparotomy between June 2008 and May 2018, selecting 67 patients with one or more previous prosthetic abdominal wall repair (AWR). RESULTS: The average number of previous repairs was 1.6 with a mean time interval of 66 months from the last repair. Clinical presentation included hernia recurrence (69%), mesh infection (26%), infection and recurrence (10%), and fistula (1%). Adhesions were intraoperatively observed in all patients, except for eight cases. Mesh was completely removed in 43 patients, partially in four. Postoperative complications were observed in 39% of cases, including wound dehiscence, hematoma, seroma, and mesh infection. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term implant results in abdominal wall repair and are not completely known, and literature is still lacking on this topic. Re-do surgery for subsequent pathological events may represent a way to increase our knowledge.

Mesh-related visceral complications following inguinal hernia repair: an emerging topic.

The use of meshes in inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has gained popularity but new complications have been observed. Mesh-related visceral complications (MRVCs) are generally considered rare and hence are not studied in depth. We carried out a thorough literature search and collected 101 clinical reports published from 1992 to 2018. The reported complications seem to have tripled in the last decade. Ninety-seven cases met the inclusion criteria and they were subdivided into four groups (group A-onlay IHR, group B-3-D IHR, group C-preperitoneal IHR, group D-laparoscopic IHR) to be analyzed, according to the herniorraphy technique. Every prosthetic IHR can be followed by MRVCs but, according to the present review, the highest incidence is related to laparoscopic repairs, the lowest to Lichtenstein technique. Time-to-event was shorter in case of preperitoneal position of the prosthesis than when the mesh was implanted over the transversalis fascia. Urinary bladder involvement predominantly occurred after laparosopic IHR. A pathogenic correlation between the most frequently complained clinical signs and the previous mesh herniorraphy was rarely reported. The diagnosis was generally made at laparotomy, which was usually performed as an emergency. Removing the infected mesh and resecting or suture repairing the involved viscera was the challenging surgical treatment. Prevention of MRVCs after inguinal hernia repair appears to be an important significant issue. It is important to pay attention to the choice of a proper implantation site, avoiding direct contact between the mesh and viscera, and to select a proper device.