Download PDF
Zentralbl Chir 2011; 136(06): 568-574
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1283761
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Prothetische Materialien in der Bauchwandchirurgie – ein Überblick

Meshes in Abdominal Wall Surgery – An Overview
H. Scheidbach
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Magdeburg, Deutschland
,
S. Wolff
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Magdeburg, Deutschland
,
H. Lippert
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Magdeburg, Deutschland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 October 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Bauchwand- und Hernienchirurgie ist ohne die prothetische Verwendung von Netzimplantaten heute nicht mehr vorstellbar. Imposant ist die Vielzahl der dabei verwendeten Fabrikate. Die Arbeit gibt unter Zusammenfassung der relevanten Materialgruppen einen Überblick über derzeit verwendete Materialien, beschreibt die Eigenschaften und weist auf relevante Unterschiede hin.

Abstract

Abdominal wall surgery and hernia repair is nowadays not conceivable without the use of mesh prosthetics. There are countless products from various health-care companies available. This article gives an overview of meshes currently in use, describes their characteristics and indicates the relevant differences between the various groups of implants.

Schlüsselwörter

Hernie - Mesh - Composites - Biologika - synthetische Netze - Bauchwand

Key words

hernia - mesh - composites - biologicals - synthetics - abdominal wall
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Lammers BJ, Meyer HJ, Huber HG et al. Entwicklungen bei der Leistenhernie vor dem Hintergrund neu eingeführter Eingriffstechniken im Kammerbereich Nordrhein. Chirurg 2001; 72: 448-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barrat C, Seriser F, Arnoud R et al. Inguinal hernia repair with beta glucan-coated mesh: prospective multicenter study – preliminary results. Hernia 2004; 8: 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 deLange DH, Aufenacker TJ, Roest M et al. Inguinal hernia surgery in The Netherlands: a baseline study before the introduction of the Dutch Guidelines. Hernia 2005; 9: 172-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Richards SK, Earnshaw JJ. Management of primary and recurrent inguinal hernia by surgeons from the South West of England. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 2003; 85: 402-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L et al. Danish Hernia Database Collaboration. Quality assessment of 26 304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 2001; 358: 1124-1128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Onitsuka A, Katagiri Y, Kiyama S et al. Current practices in adult groin hernias: a survey of Japanese general surgeons. Surg Today 2003; 33: 155-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chiasson PM, Pace DE, Schlachta CM et al. Minimally invasive surgical practice: A survey of general surgeons in Ontario. Can J Surg 2004; 47: 15-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rutkow IM. Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin N Am 2003; 83: 1045-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T. Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time?. A population-based analysis. Ann Surg 2003; 237: 129-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Orenstein SB, Qiao Y, Kaur M et al. Human monocyte activation by biologic and biodegradable meshes in vitro. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 805-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Klinge U, Klink CD, Klosterhalfen B. Das ideale Mesh – mehr als ein Moskitonetz. Zbl Chir 2010; 135: 168-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bringman S, Conze J, Cuccurullo D et al. Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes. Hernia 2010; 14: 81-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Weyhe D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O et al. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 2006; 30: 1586-1591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McDermott MK, Isayeva IS, Thomas TM et al. Characterization of the structure and properties of authentic and counterfeit polypropylene surgical meshes. Hernia 2006; 10: 131-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cobb SW, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 2005; 12: 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rodehaver GT. Surgipro mesh: not all multifilaments are the same. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006; 17 (Suppl. 01) S31-S33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Schumpelick V, Klinge U, Welty G et al. Meshes in der Bauchwand. Chirurg 1999; 70: 876-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chu CC. Textile-based biomaterials for surgical application. In: Dimitriu S. (Hrsg.). Polymeric biomaterials. 2.. Aufl. Basel: M. Dekker Verlag; 2002: 521-523
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A et al. In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during totally extraperitoneal endoscopic patchplasty: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 211-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Earle DB, Romanelli J. Prosthetic materials for hernia: what’s new?. Contemp Surg 2007; 63: 63-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U. The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2005; 2: 103-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Robinson TN, Clarke JH, Schoen J et al. Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2005; 19: 1556-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mühl T, Binnebösel M, Klinge U et al. New objective measurement to characterize the porosity of textile implants. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 2008; 84: 176-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V et al. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 2002; 103: 208-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Hope WW et al. Meshes in hernia repair. Surg Technol Int 2007; 16: 123-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Conze J, Krones CJ, Schumpelick V et al. Incisional hernia: challenge of reoperations after mesh repair. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2007; 392: 453-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jonas J. Das Problem der Netzschrumpfung in der laparoskopischen Hernienchirurgie. Zbl Chir 2009; 134: 209-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Amid PK. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1997; 1: 15-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gilbert TW, Freund J, Badylak SF. Quantification of DNA in biologic scaffold materials. J Surg Res 2009; 152: 135-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Aufenacker TJ, Koelemay MJ, Gouma DJ et al. Sytematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in prevention of wound infection after mesh repair of abdominal wall hernia. Br J Surg 2006; 93: 5-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ et al. Morphological aspects of surgical meshes as a risk factor for bacterial colonization. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 1051-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerberg B et al. Do multifilament alloplastic meshes increase the infection rate?. Analysis of the polymeric surface, the bacteria adherence, and the in vivo consequences in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res 2002; 63: 765-771
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Saadia R. Invited Commentary on the Analysis of Infection after Polypropylene Mesh Repair of Abdominal Wall Hernia. World J Surg 2006; 30: 2279-2280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Aydinuraz K, Agalar C, Agalar F et al. In vitro S. epidermidis and S. aureus adherence to composite and lightweight polypropylene grafts. J Surg Res 2009; 157: 79-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Ploeg RJ et al. The phenomenon of infection with abdominal wall reconstruction. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 2314-2327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dayton MT, Buchele BA, Shirazi SS et al. Use of an absorbable mesh to repair contaminated abdominal wall defects. Arch Surg 1986; 121: 954-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Trabucchi E, Corsi F, Meinardi C et al. Tissue response for polyester mesh for hernia repair: an ultra-microscopic study in man. Hernia 1998; 2: 107-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Pason BL, Novitsky YW, Zercy M et al. Management of infections of polytetrafluoroethylene-based mesh. Surg Infect 2007; 8: 337-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Schug-Pass C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A et al. The use of composite meshes in laparoscopic repair of abdominal wall hernias: are there differences in biocompatibility?. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 487-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Badylak SF. The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 3587-3593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F et al. New “biological” meshes: the need for a register. The EHS Registry for biological prostheses: call for participating European surgeons. Hernia 2009; 13: 103-108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Harth KC, Rosen MJ. Major complications associated with xenograft biologic mesh implantation in abdominal wall reconstruction. Surg Innov 2009; 16: 324-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delayne JP. Experimental evaluation of four biologic prostheses for ventral hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11: 1275-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cavallaro A, LoMenzo E, DiVita M et al. Use of biological meshes for abdominal wall reconstruction in highly contaminated fields. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 1928-1935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Ayubi FS, Armstrong PJ, Mattai MS et al. Abdominal wall hernia repair: a comparison of Permacol and Surgisis grafts in a rat hernia model. Hernia 2008; 12: 373-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Cook JL, Fox DB, Kuroki K et al. In vitro and in vivo comparison of five biomaterials used for orthopaedic soft tissue augmentation. Am J Vet Res 2008; 69: 148-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Liang HC. Effects of crosslinking degree of an acellular biological tissue on its tissue regeneration pattern. Biomaterials 2004; 25: 3541-3552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Petter-Puchner AH, Fortelny RH, Walder N et al. Adverse effects associated with the use of porcine cross-linked collagen implants in an experimental model of incisional hernia repair. J Surg Res 2008; 145: 105-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Pomahac B, Aflaki P. Use of non-cross-linked porcine dermal scaffold in abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg 2010; 199: 22-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Rosen MJ. Biologic mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction: a critical appraisal. Am Surg 2010; 76: 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Bartkowski R. G-DRG 2010: Chirurgisch relevante Änderungen des deutschen Fallpauschalensystems. BDC Mitteilungen 2010; 1: 23-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar