Department of Surgery, Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box #8109, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2010 Dec;24(12):3002-7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1076-0. Epub 2010 May 6.
The purpose of this study was to characterize the adhesion characteristics of absorbable- and nonabsorbable-barrier-coated meshes and to report adhesiolysis-related complications during laparoscopic re-exploration after prior ventral hernia repair.
Under an IRB-approved protocol, patients undergoing laparoscopic re-exploration after prior intraperitoneal mesh placement were prospectively graded intraoperatively for adhesion tenacity (0-4), adhesion surface area (0 = 0%, 10 = 100%), and ratio of adhesiolysis time to mesh surface area (min/cm(2)). Adhesiolysis-related complications were also recorded. Data are given as mean ± SD. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was determined using the t test and Fisher's exact test.
From March 2006 to March 2009, 69 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery after prior intraperitoneal mesh placement for ventral hernia repair. Previous meshes were absorbable-barrier-coated mesh (n = 18), permanent-barrier composite mesh [Composix® (n = 17)], permanent-barrier noncomposite mesh [DualMesh® (n = 14)], uncoated polypropylene mesh (n = 12), and biologic mesh (n = 8). Indications for laparoscopic re-exploration were recurrent ventral hernia (n = 58), chronic pain (n = 3), cholecystectomy (n = 3), parastomal hernia (n = 2), small bowel obstruction (n = 1), nephrectomy (n = 1), and Nissen fundoplication (n = 1). Adhesions to DualMesh were less tenacious (P < 0.05) compared to all other meshes. Surface area of adhesions to DualMesh were less (P < 0.05) than to Composix and to uncoated polypropylene mesh, but not to absorbable-barrier-coated and biologic meshes. Adhesiolysis time:mesh surface area was less (P < 0.05) for DualMesh compared to Composix, uncoated polypropylene, and biologic mesh, but not to absorbable-barrier-coated mesh. Adhesiolysis-related complications occurred in two (16.7%) (P = ns) patients with uncoated polypropylene mesh, one cystotomy and one enterotomy; both were repaired laparoscopically. There were two (16.7%) (P = ns) conversions to an open procedure: one converted patient had Composix (6.7%) and one had absorbable-barrier-coated mesh (5.9%). There were no adhesiolysis-related complications with these meshes. There were no adhesiolysis-related complications or conversions to open in the DualMesh or biologic mesh groups.
Adhesion characteristics of mesh placed intraperitoneally and adhesiolysis-related complications during laparoscopic re-exploration after ventral hernia repair are associated with unique properties of the mesh and/or barrier.
本研究的目的是描述可吸收和不可吸收屏障涂层网片的黏附特性,并报告在先前的腹疝修补术后行腹腔镜再次探查时与黏连松解相关的并发症。
根据机构审查委员会批准的方案,前瞻性地对接受腹腔镜再次探查的先前放置腹腔内网片的患者进行术中分级,以评估黏连坚韧度(0-4 级)、黏连表面积(0 = 0%,10 = 100%)和黏连松解时间与网片表面积的比值(min/cm(2))。还记录了与黏连松解相关的并发症。数据以平均值 ± 标准差表示。采用 t 检验和 Fisher 确切检验确定统计学意义(P < 0.05)。
2006 年 3 月至 2009 年 3 月,69 例患者因腹疝修补术而接受腹腔镜手术。先前的网片分别为可吸收屏障涂层网片(n = 18)、永久性屏障复合网片 [Composix®(n = 17)]、永久性屏障非复合网片 [DualMesh®(n = 14)]、无涂层聚丙烯网片(n = 12)和生物网片(n = 8)。腹腔镜再次探查的指征为复发性腹疝(n = 58)、慢性疼痛(n = 3)、胆囊切除术(n = 3)、造口旁疝(n = 2)、小肠梗阻(n = 1)、肾切除术(n = 1)和 Nissen 胃底折叠术(n = 1)。DualMesh 与所有其他网片相比,黏附更为坚韧(P < 0.05)。DualMesh 黏附的表面积更小(P < 0.05),与 Composix 和无涂层聚丙烯网片相比,与可吸收屏障涂层和生物网片相比,但无统计学差异。黏连松解时间:网片表面积与 DualMesh 相比更小(P < 0.05),与 Composix、无涂层聚丙烯和生物网片相比,与可吸收屏障涂层网片相比,但无统计学差异。与无涂层聚丙烯网片相关的黏连松解相关并发症发生在 2 例(16.7%)(P = ns)患者中,1 例为膀胱切开术,1 例为肠切开术,均经腹腔镜修复。2 例(16.7%)(P = ns)转为开腹手术:1 例转为 Composix(6.7%),1 例转为可吸收屏障涂层网片(5.9%)。这些网片中均未发生与黏连松解相关的并发症。在 DualMesh 和生物网片组中,均无与黏连松解相关的并发症或转为开腹手术。
腹疝修补术后腹腔镜再次探查时网片的黏附特性和与黏连松解相关的并发症与网片本身和/或屏障的独特特性有关。