Abstract
More than 300,000 patients are admitted to the hospital each year at a cost of more than $1 billion for treatment of an adhesion-related problem. The most common cause of adhesions is previous surgery, and hernia mesh is one of the inciting causes of adhesions after surgery. Numerous composite or coated prosthetic meshes have been developed to reduce the incidence of adhesion formation after intraperitoneal placement of mesh. Animal studies have documented fewer and less dense adhesions after placement of these meshes; however, no studies in patients have proven that these composite or coated meshes result in fewer adhesion-related complications. Despite the lack of evidence from human studies, because the clinical problem is so prevalent, experimental and theoretical reasons justify use of composite or coated meshes that may reduce the incidence of adhesion formation after intraperitoneal placement of mesh.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Adhesions
- Bowel obstruction
- Ventral hernia
- Ventral hernia repair
- Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair
- Hernia mesh
- Composite mesh
- Coated mesh
The Incidence and Consequences of Intra-abdominal Adhesions
Intra-abdominal adhesions are the cause of significant morbidity and mortality. Beyond the technical challenge posed by adhesions, they cause enormous human suffering and cost to society. In 1994, a comprehensive report based on the National Hospital Discharge Survey indicated that 303,836 patients underwent adhesiolysis [1]. These procedures were associated with 846,415 inpatient days and incurred $1.3 billion in hospital and surgeon costs. Ten years later, those numbers had increased slightly. In 2004, more than 342,000 patients underwent adhesiolysis [2]. Many other patients who did not require adhesiolysis were admitted to the hospital with either a bowel obstruction or complaints of pain caused by adhesions. Many other patients are afflicted with infertility caused by adhesions [3–5].
In addition to the human and financial cost of treating conditions that are caused by adhesions, they are commonly the cause of adverse consequences during surgery for conditions unrelated to the adhesions themselves. The presence of adhesions increases the chance of converting a laparoscopic operation to an open operation, increases the time required to enter the abdomen, and is the primary cause of bowel injury at the time of trocar insertion during laparoscopic surgery [6]. In short, adhesions are frequently the cause of a significant technical complication during an operation.
Although any condition inciting an inflammatory response may cause intra-abdominal adhesions, by far, the most common cause of adhesions is previous surgery. Until the late twentieth century, surgeons performed essentially all abdominal surgery with an open laparotomy, and up to 95% of patients who undergo a laparotomy develop adhesions [7, 8]. Depending on the underlying disease and the nature of the procedure at the time of the primary surgical procedure, up to 30% of patients will develop a bowel obstruction secondary to adhesions after a laparotomy. [9] After any colon resection, patients have a 5–10% chance of an adhesion-related admission within 5 years, and the incidence of adhesion-related admission within 5 years after proctocolectomy is 15.4% [10, 11].
The size and orientation of the laparotomy incision may be factors in the development of adhesions, but there is no reliable method to prevent adhesions during surgery [12]. Anecdotal experience and some initial observational studies suggested that laparoscopic surgery resulted in fewer and less severe adhesions than those caused by laparotomy [13]; however, other studies regarding adhesions after colorectal surgery suggest that the incidence of adhesions is not significantly different between open and laparoscopic colectomy [14].
Some of the important factors that increase the likelihood of extensive adhesion formation include ischemia, surgical trauma, inflammation, hemorrhage, thermal injury, and reactions to foreign bodies [15]. Although foreign bodies such as gloves, powders, sutures, sponges, and irrigating solutions all incite a response that can lead to adhesion formation, the foreign body of most concern in this discussion is hernia mesh.
Prosthetic Mesh as a Cause of Adhesions
Most surgeons have seen extensive, dense adhesions between polypropylene mesh and viscera at the time of re-exploration in patients with previously placed intraperitoneal mesh. Because these findings often led to difficult operations and sometimes caused complications, surgeons became reluctant to place mesh intraperitoneally. The occasional occurrence of these extremely difficult situations has led to attempts to develop mesh that would incite fewer adhesions. The main concern on reoperation after previous intra-abdominal mesh placement is the ingrowth that can occur between the viscera and a macroporous mesh. Adherence (adhesions) without ingrowth results in minimal to moderate effort to lyse the adhesions. But, with ingrowth, the mesh may need to be cut off of the abdominal wall, or a bowel resection may need to be performed to complete an operation. In rare cases, ingrowth may also lead to fistula or abscess formation.
There is no widely accepted method for determining the extent and density of adhesions in the peritoneal cavity short of abdominal exploration. Because it is unethical to subject patients to repeat laparotomy or laparoscopy simply to explore for the presence of adhesions, investigators cannot conclusively determine the extent and density of adhesions formed after mesh placement. We really only know the extent of adhesion formation in the small, but significant, percent of patients who require a repeat operation after mesh placement. For this reason, to evaluate meshes that were designed to prevent adhesions, investigators have documented for several types of new meshes the extent and density of adhesion formation at either laparoscopy or necropsy in several animal studies [16–27].
These studies typically compare the extent and severity of adhesion formation after placement of a composite mesh (two layers) or coated mesh (single layer) with the extent and severity of adhesion formation after placement of a single-layer uncoated mesh, usually polypropylene. The composite mesh is designed to enable excellent tissue ingrowth into one layer while preventing adhesion formation and/or ingrowth into the other layer. The layer designed to lie against the abdominal wall is called the parietal layer, and the layer designed to lie against the omentum or viscera is called the visceral layer.
The parietal layer is usually a porous synthetic mesh with interstices into which the body can grow. The porous layer should enable firm incorporation of the mesh into the parietes. The visceral layer is microporous, usually either expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) or an anti-adhesive material such as a hydrophilic anti-adhesive collagen layer, a hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose combination, or polyvinylidene fluoride although other materials have also been tested. A coated mesh is a single-layer mesh that is coated with a material to prevent adhesions, such as a hydrogel.
Most studies in the animals documented tissue ingrowth into the parietal layer of the composite or coated mesh that was equivalent to ingrowth into plain polypropylene but with fewer and less dense adhesions to the visceral layer than to plain polypropylene. Based on the results of animal studies, surgeons often choose a composite mesh hoping that fewer serious adhesions will form. However, there are no human studies confirming this. Despite the belief that the composite meshes cause fewer intraperitoneal adhesions, there continues to be occasional anecdotal reports of serious adhesions caused by composite meshes [28] (Fig. 35.1).
Some investigators have reported successful identification and documentation of the location and density of intraperitoneal adhesions with the use of abdominal ultrasound [29]; however, not all investigators have found the use of ultrasound to accurately identify adhesions.
Conclusions
There is no experimental evidence from human studies that one mesh is better than another, despite evidence in animal studies that some meshes incite fewer and less dense adhesions. However, the severity of the adhesion problem is clear, and the role of mesh in the formation of adhesions is clear. Based on the evidence from animal studies and solid theoretical reasons, the use of a composite mesh with an anti-adhesive layer seems appropriate when hernia repair requires intraperitoneal mesh [30].
Summary
Adhesions are a serious and very significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA. Many synthetic mesh products incite extensive and dense adhesion formation in the abdominal cavity if placed intraperitoneally. Because it is necessary to use mesh in many patients who require hernia repair, it is theoretically and experimentally desirable to use a mesh designed to reduce adhesion formation if intraperitoneal placement of mesh is necessary.
References
Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, et al. Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and experience in the Unites States in 1994. JACS. 1998;186:1–9.
DeFrances CJ, Podgornik MN. 2004 National hospital discharge survey. Advance data from vital and healthc statistics; no 371. Hyattwsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2006.
Latenser B. Commentary (A novel hydrogel-coated polyester mesh prevents post-surgical adhesions in a rat model). J Surg Res. 2011;166:73–4.
Judge TW, Parker DM, Dinsmore RC. Abdominal wall hernia repair: a comparison of Sepramesh and Parietex composite mesh in a rabbit hernia model. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:76.
Emans PJ, Schreinemacher MH, Gijbels MJ, et al. Polypropylene meshes to prevent abdominal herniation. Can stable coatings prevent adhesions in the long term? Ann Biomed Eng. 2009;37:410.
van Goor H. Consequences and complications of peritoneal adhesions. Colorectal Dis. 2007;2:25–34.
Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Ellis H, O’Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8849 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study. BJOG. 2000;107(7):855–62.
Fukuhira Y, Ito M, Kakenko H, et al. Prevention of postoperative adhesions by a novel honeycomb-patterned poly(lactide) film in a rat experimental model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;86B:353.
Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, et al. Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999;353(9163):1476–80.
Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, et al. The SCAR-3 study: 5-year adhesion-related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7(6):551–8.
Parikh JA, Ko CY, Magard MA, et al. What is the rate of small bowel obstruction after colectomy? Am Surg. 2008;74:1001–5.
van der Wal JBC, Lordens GIT, Vrijland WW, et al. Adhesion prevention during laparotomy. Ann Surg. 2011;253(6):1118–21.
Barmparas G, Branco BC, Schnuriger B, et al. The incidence and risk factors of post-laparotomy adhesive small bowel obstruction. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1619–28.
Khury E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R, et al. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008;34:498–504.
Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine P, et al. Peritoneal adhesions: etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical significance. Dig Surg. 2001;18:260–73.
Goldberg JM, Toledo AA, Mitchell DE. An evaluation of the Gore-Tex surgical membrane for the prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;70(6):846–8.
Duffy AJ, Hogle NJ, LaPerle KM, et al. Comparison of two composite meshes using two fixation devices in a porcine laparoscopic ventral hernia repair model. Hernia. 2004;8:358–64.
McGinty JJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, et al. A comparative study of adhesion formation and abdominal wall ingrowth after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in a porcine model using multiple types of mesh. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(6):786–90.
Gonzalez R, Rodeheaver GT, Moody DL, et al. Resistance to adhesion formation: a comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity. Hernia. 2004;8:213–9.
Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Peindl RD, et al. Prospective evaluation of adhesion formation and shrinkage of intra-abdominal prosthetics in a rabbit model. Am Surg. 2006;72(9):808–13.
Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Cristiano JA, et al. Comparative evaluation of adhesion formation, strength of ingrowth, and textile properties of prosthetic meshes after long-term intra-abdominal implantation in a rabbit. J Surg Res. 2007;140(1):6–11.
Jacob B, Hogle NJ, Durak E, et al. Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene vs. Proceed® vs. Parietex Composite®. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(4):629–33.
Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Hope WW, et al. Meshes in hernia repair. Surg Technol Int. 2007;16:123–7.
Gruber-Blum S, Petter-Puchner AH, Brand J, et al. Comparison of three separate antiadhesive barriers for intraperitoneal onlay mesh hernia repair in an experimental model. Br J Surg. 2010;98:442–9.
Fortelny RH, Petter-Puchner AH, Glaser KS, et al. Adverse effects of polyvinylidene fluoride-coated polypropylene mesh used for laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay repair of Incisional hernia. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1140–5.
Letter 1 and Letter 2 re: Fortelny, et al. in BJS;97:1140–5. Br J Surg. 2011;98:156–60.
Bringman S, Conze J, Cuccurulla D, et al. Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes. Hernia. 2010;14:81–7.
Jenkins ED, Yom V, Melman L, et al. Prospective evaluation of adhesion characteristics to intraperitoneal mesh and adhesiolysis-related complications during laparoscopic re-exploration after prior ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:3002–7.
Arnaud JP, Hennekinee-Mucci S, Pessaux P, et al. Ultrasound detection of visceral adhesion after intraperitoneal ventral hernia treatment: a comparative study of protected versus unprotected meshes. Hernia. 2003;7:85–8.
Eriksen JR, Gogenur I, Rosenberg J. Choice of mesh for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2007;11:481–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fowler, D.L. (2013). Adhesions After Lap Ventral: Do They Matter?. In: Jacob, B., Ramshaw, B. (eds) The SAGES Manual of Hernia Repair. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4824-2_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4824-2_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4823-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4824-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)