P159 PARTIAL VS COMPLETE MESH REMOVAL AFTER CROHNIC MESH INFECTION: COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES

Aim “The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes between partial mesh removal (PM) and complete mesh removal (CM) due to chronic mesh infection.” Material and Methods “Patients with mesh removal due to chronic mesh infection were included from February 2010 to May 2020. The patients were consequently assigned depending on the surgical technique to either partial or complete mesh removal. The demographic, operative and follow-up data of the two groups were analyzed and compared in terms of surgical site occurrence (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), overall complications following Clavien-Dindo classification and relapse of mesh infection at 1 year follow-up.” Results “The study included 65 patients (44.61% males) intervened of mesh explantation. MThe patients were assigned to PM 56.92% (n = 37) and CM 43.08% (n = 28). 27% of the patient in the CM group needed a new mesh vs. 7.1 % of PM p = 0,039 (4.38 OR 1.02-24.1). There were no statistically significant differences with respect to length of hospital stay CM 5.46 (DS 6.1) vs 5.82 (DS 10.09) days, p = 0.409. SSO were 84.4%, p = 0.631, while SSI was 61.2%. There were no differences in terms of Clavien-Dindo (p = 0.617). The appearance of new chronic mesh infection after surgery were: CM 29.7% vs PM 39.3%, p = 0.420.” Conclusions “Postoperative morbidity after mesh explants is comparable between partial and total explants. Those cases in which a total explant is performed are more likely to require the placement of a new mesh, while in partial explant there is a higher percentage of recurrence of chronic infection.”

Titanium Mesh Exposure After Bone Grafting: Treatment Approaches—A Systematic Review

Study Design: A systematic review according to PRISMA statement has been designed to answer the preliminary question: “ In titanium mesh exposures, is there a treatment alternative which leads to an increased graft maintenance?” and fill the PICO assessment out. Objective: To review studies published in the past 20 years (1999-2019) in which mesh exposure has occurred, detecting the suitable approaches to treat exposure allowing the graft maintenance. Methods: Initial search on PUBMED, SCOPUS, and COCHRANE databases resulted in 777 articles, and hand-searching identified 6 articles. After removing duplicates and unrelated articles, eligibility criteria were applied, and 31 studies were selected (randomized clinical trials, retrospective/prospective clinical trials, and case series). Results: A total of 677 surgical sites and 225 cases of mesh exposure were identified. Eleven treatments have been identified. Chlorhexidine was the primary approach in 46% of cases, followed by oral hygiene instructions and follow-up with 22.5% of occurrences. In 21% of clinical situations, titanium mesh removal was the treatment of choice, associated with other measures (i.e., antibiotic prescription). There seems to be a consensus in cases of infection. When this complication was associated with tissue dehiscence, the primary treatment was mesh removal. The same does not occur when the site needs to be cleaned for long-term periods. Conclusion: In 2 decades of use of titanium meshes, the available treatments do not seem to have evolved, and there is not enough data to establish a guideline.

Short-Term Outcomes Following Removal of Infected Hernia Mesh

There are limited studies regarding outcomes of replacing an infected mesh with another mesh. We reviewed short-term outcomes following infected mesh removal and whether placement of new mesh is associated with worse outcomes. Patients who underwent hernia repair with infected mesh removal were identified from 2005 to 2018 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. They were divided into new mesh (Mesh+) or no mesh (Mesh-) groups. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to compare morbidity between the two groups and to identify associated risk factors. Of 1660 patients, 49.3% received new mesh, with higher morbidity in the Mesh+ (35.9% vs. 30.3%; P = .016), but without higher rates of surgical site infection (SSI) (21.3% vs. 19.7%; P = .465). Mesh+ had higher rates of acute kidney injury (1.3% vs. .4%; P = .028), UTI (3.1% vs. 1.3%, P = .014), ventilator dependence (4.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .006), and longer LOS (8.6 vs. 7 days, P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression showed new mesh placement (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07-1.85; P = .014), body mass index (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00-1.03; P = .022), and smoking (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.05-1.95; P = .025) as risk factors independently associated with increased morbidity. New mesh placement at time of infected mesh removal is associated with increased morbidity but not with SSI. Body mass index and smoking history continue to contribute to postoperative morbidity during subsequent operations for complications.

Conservative Management of Spondylodiscitis after Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy: A Case Report and Review of Literature

Sacral colpopexy is one of the standard procedures to treat apical pelvic organ prolapse. In most cases, a synthetic mesh is used to facilitate the colposuspension. Spondylodiscitis is a rare but potentially serious complication that must be promptly diagnosed and treated, despite the lack of consensus in the management of this complication. We report one case of spondylodiscitis after a laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy and sacral colpopexy treated conservatively. We also present a literature review regarding this rare complication. A conservative approach without mesh removal may be possible in selected patients (stable, with no vaginal lesions, mesh exposure or severe neurologic compromise). Hemocultures and culture of image-guided biopsies should be performed to direct antibiotic therapy. Conservative versus surgical treatment should be regularly weighted depending on clinical and analytical progression. A multidisciplinary team is of paramount importance in the follow-up of these patients.

Biologic Graft Augmentation of Anterior Mesh Erosion Complicated by Poor Wound Healing Secondary to Heavy Tobacco Use

(1) Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common among post-menopausal women affecting more than 25% in their lifetime—with 11% having a lifetime risk of undergoing an operation for a POP. In April 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took surgical mesh for transvaginal use off the market due to safety and effectiveness concerns. This leaves colporrhaphy or colporrhaphy with bio-graft options for a POP surgical repair. (2) Case: In this report, we look at a case with anterior mesh erosion complicated by poor wound healing secondary to heavy tobacco use and how it was successfully removed and augmented with a Coloplast axis allograft dermis biological graft secured with an Anchorsure sacrospinous ligament/arcus tendineus fascia pelvis fixation device and prolene suture. (3) Results: After failing two prior surgeries to rectify the mesh erosion, a final procedure was performed using a biologic dermal graft and a double-layer closure to aid in protecting and increasing the integrity of the tissue. (4) Conclusions: Collectively, the patient and her surgeries highlight the difficult nature of complete mesh removal and how tobacco use can significantly affect the proper healing of surgical sites. The number of surgeries necessary to address the patient’s chief complaint and the resolution of her symptoms with the biologic graft supports the challenges one faces with mesh removal and poor wound healing secondary to tobacco use. This case illustrates that complicated transvaginal mesh erosion should initially be augmented with a biologic dermal graft secured via sacrospinous ligament/arcus tendineus fascia pelvis fixation and double-layer closure and not only if visible mesh removal alone fails.