17 August 2023: Articles
Laparoscopic Removal of an Infected Mesh Following TEP Procedure for Femoral Hernia with Omental Patch Closure of a Peritoneal Defect
Unusual clinical course, Diagnostic / therapeutic accidents, Management of emergency care
Yusuke Takahashi1ABCDEF*, Daisuke Komatsu2BD, Hitoshi Seki1ADEDOI: 10.12659/AJCR.940618
Am J Case Rep 2023; 24:e940618
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mesh infection following inguinal hernia repair is rare, and mesh removal is mandatory. However, the laparoscopic approach is challenging to perform. Here, we present a case of laparoscopic repair of a mesh infection using a totally extraperitoneal approach (TEP).
CASE REPORT: A 76-year-old woman underwent repair of a right femoral hernia via TEP approach using a prosthetic mesh with unabsorbable tacks. A month and a half after the surgery, she reported pain in the right groin. Computed tomography revealed a subcutaneous abscess in the right groin. We suspected mesh infection and initially chose conservative management, which included percutaneous drainage and systemic antibiotic administration. Her symptoms temporarily resolved; however, symptom relapse and purulent discharge from the right groin were observed. We performed laparoscopic removal of the infected mesh and all tacks via the transabdominal preperitoneal approach. A drain was placed in the infected preperitoneal space, and the peritoneal defect was covered using the greater omentum. The patient’s postoperative course was uneventful, and she was discharged on postoperative day 20. Infection relapse, symptoms of femoral hernia, and adhesive intestinal obstruction have not been observed.
CONCLUSIONS: A laparoscopic approach for mesh infection after TEP hernia repair is feasible, even if the mesh is fixed using a tack. Greater omental use for peritoneal defects is useful in clinical situations associated with a contaminated surgical field.
Keywords: Hernia, Femoral, Intestinal Obstruction, Laparoscopy, Omentum, Female, Humans, Aged, Surgical Mesh, Peritoneum
Background
Mesh infection after inguinal hernia repair is a rare complication, accounting for 0.17% [1]. Mesh removal is recommended for mesh infection [2]. Laparoscopic mesh removal has been reported to be feasible and effective; however, details regarding peritoneal defect management, which often occurs following mesh removal, have been rarely described [3,4]. We report a case of mesh infection after fem-oral hernia repair using a totally extraperitoneal approach (TEP) and effective laparoscopic management of peritoneal defects after mesh removal.
Case Report
A 76-year-old woman underwent TEP hernia repair for a symptomatic right femoral hernia, as an elective (non-emergency) procedure. 3D Max® (Bard, USA), a prosthetic mesh, was fixed to the abdominal wall by tacker (CAPSURE®, Bard, USA). There was no contamination leading to mesh infection in the right groin during the first surgery. The operative time was 91 min. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 2 without complications. However, a month and a half later, she had right inguinal pain and swelling (Figure 1A). Plain computed tomography (CT) showed fluid collection in the right groin (Figure 1B). Although we suspected postoperative mesh infection, we initially opted for conservative management and a surgical approach when conservative management fails. Percutaneous drainage was performed for fluid collection, and purulent discharge was observed.
We decided to remove the infected mesh laparoscopically. A trocar was inserted, as shown in Figure 3A. The peritoneum was opened, and the infected mesh was approached. All tacks used for mesh fixation were removed as the screw was released, and the infected mesh was removed under the magnified view of a laparoscope (Figure 3B). After washing the infected peritoneal cavity, a Clio drain (6 mm; Sumitomo Bakelite, Japan) was inserted from the right port site into the preperitoneal cavity (Figure 3C). Peritoneal closure was impossible because of inflammation. Therefore, to prevent adhesions with tissues lacking peritoneal covering, which may have led to adhesive intestinal obstruction, we sutured the greater omentum to the peritoneum and covered the peritoneal defect (Figure 3D). Finally, debridement and open drainage of the purulent discharge were performed. The operative time was 250 min. Additionally,
The postoperative course was uneventful, and the groin pain gradually improved. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 20. Thereafter, no recurrence of right femoral hernia or infection was observed in the 2-month follow-up.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this case report is the first to describe a detailed procedure for laparoscopic salvage surgery for mesh infection after TEP approach. Although there are already some published case reports describing the laparoscopic approach for mesh infection management following hernia repair, the most important point in this report is how we managed the opened peritoneum [3,4]. In our case, we could not completely close the opened peritoneum. We are the first to report the use of a greater omentum patch for peritoneal defect closure.
Minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic or robotic surgery, have been reported to be superior to open groin hernia repair regarding length of postoperative hospitalization, incidence of chronic pain, and postoperative infection [5,6]. Therefore, endovideosurgical and laparoscopic approaches, including TEP and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair, respectively, have become common. At our institution, TEP approach is the standard procedure for treating groin hernias. Moreover, we use a non-absorbable tack (CAPSURE®, Bard, USA) for mesh fixation, although the usefulness of tissue glue and self-gripping mesh has been recently reported [7,8].
Although mesh removal is the first choice for suspected mesh infection after hernia repair, we selected conservative treatment, including percutaneous drainage and antibiotic administration, because none of our surgeons had experienced mesh infection following TEP hernia repair [2]. Mesh removal should have been performed during the first treatment because the conservative treatment failed, as expected. In contrast, conservative management with negative-pressure wound therapy for mesh infection after hernia surgery has been reported [11]. Although we did not adopt this therapy and instead performed percutaneous drainage and antibiotic administration, this approach may be an option for mesh infection in the future.
Salvage surgery for mesh infections has several limitations that should be resolved. The first is how we approach the infected mesh, the second is whether to remove non-absorbable tacks used to fix the mesh, and finally, when abdominal wall or peritoneal defects occur after mesh removal, how we manage the situation. Regarding the approach to the infected mesh, we selected the non-open approach, that is, laparoscopic surgery (TAPP approach), because its usefulness has already been reported [3,4]. We could easily approach the preperitoneal space and remove the infected mesh after the peritoneum was opened. All the tacks were easily removed when the screw was released. Although the contamination of the peritoneal cavity may be a concern in the TAPP approach, we washed the peritoneal cavity after mesh removal and the patient experienced no complications, such as intraabdominal abscess, postoperatively. The laparoscopic approach was considered more advantageous compared with the open approach because we could reduce abdominal wall destruction when the infected mesh was dissected from the abdominal wall and safely preserve important anatomical structures, such as the inferior epigastric vessels and external iliac vessels, under the magnified view by laparoscopy.
The exposed preperitoneal space was not completely closed, as shown in Figure 3C. We were worried about adhesions with tissues lacking peritoneal covering. As mentioned above, we sutured the greater omentum to the abdominal wall to cover the exposed preperitoneal space. The greater omentum is effectively used in various surgical fields, including contaminated ones, other than gastrointestinal surgery, such as thoracic and cardiovascular surgeries [12,13]. In the present case, we closed the peritoneal defect using the greater omentum and the patient experienced no complications postoperatively. Regarding clinical situations associated with a contaminated surgical field and closure of the peritoneal defect, the use of omentum was effective. Further follow-up is needed to ascertain whether the greater omentum prevents adhesive small-bowel obstruction.
It remains controversial whether concurrent hernia repair is mandatory, including the method of its repair. Several options, such as the use of a biologic mesh or a biosynthetic material, autologous tissue coverage, and a primary closure are available [2,14–16]. However, the hernia recurrence rate, which accounts for 13–88%, after these procedures remains unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, Fawole et al reported that hernia recurrence after mesh removal is uncommon because of the fibrous reaction evoked due to it [17]. In our case, the hernia recurrence was not observed, and preoperative groin pain was completely resolved, although the postoperative follow-up duration (2 months) may be short. As suggested in a previous report, if femoral hernia recurrence occurs, an infrainguinal approach using plug mesh may be useful [18].
Conclusions
The patient experienced no relapse of femoral hernia and re-infection, and the groin pain was completely resolved. The laparoscopic approach for infected meshes after TEP or TAPP repair is preferable to the open approach. The use of a greater omen-tal patch is recommended for patients with peritoneal defects.
Figures
Figure 1.. Findings of postoperative infection. (A) Swelling and redness of the right groin. (B) Computed tomography image. Fluid collection (arrow) in the right groin. Arrowhead: a tack, used in hernia repair. Figure 2.. Findings on contrast-enhanced computed tomography and gross finding in the right groin. (A) Arrow: inflammation around a mesh, arrowhead: a tack. (B) Arrow: purulent discharge, arrowhead: first drainage site after conservative treatment. (C) Arrow: abscess below the right groin. Figure 3.. Port placement and intraoperative findings. (A) Port placement. Arrow: Clio drain insertion port. (B) Infected mesh removal. (C) Drain insertion to an infected peritoneal cavity. Arrowheads: peritoneal defect. (D) The omentum used to cover a peritoneal defect.References:
1.. Moon V, Chaudry GA, Choy C, Ferzli GS, Mesh Infection in the era of laparoscopy: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2004; 14; 349-52
2.. Kao AM, Arnold MR, Augenstein VA, Heniford BT, Prevention and treatment strategies for mesh infection in abdominal wall reconstruction: Plast Reconstr Surg, 2018; 142; 149S-55S
3.. Mikamori M, Kinjo A, Nakahara Y, Laparoscopic mesh removal for mesh infection related to pararectal incision of previous appendectomy after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: A case report: Asian J Endosc Surg, 2022; 15; 368-71
4.. Chowbey PK, Khullar R, Sharma A, Laparoscopic management of infected mesh after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2015; 25; 125-28
5.. Shah MY, Raut P, Wilkinson TRV, Agrawal V, Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein tension-free open mesh inguinal hernia repair: A prospective randomized study: Medicine (Baltimore), 2022; 101; e29746
6.. Pokala B, Armijo PR, Flores L, Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: A national database review: Hernia, 2019; 23; 593-99
7.. Nizam S, Saxena N, Yelamanchi R, Mesh fixation with fibrin glue versus tacker in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: ANZ J Surg, 2021; 91; 2086-90
8.. Fumagalli Romario U, Puccetti F, Self-gripping mesh versus staple fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A prospective comparison: Surg Endosc, 2013; 27; 1798-802
9.. Argemi X, Prévost G, Riegel P: Clin Microbiol Infect, 2017; 23; 334.e1-e8
10.. Ho PL, Leung SM, Chow KH: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 2015; 81; 141-44
11.. Meagher H, Clarke Moloney M, Grace PA, Conservative management of mesh-site infection in hernia repair surgery: A case series: Hernia, 2015; 19; 231-37
12.. Acarturk TO, Swartz WM, Luketich J, Laparoscopically harvested omental flap for chest wall and intrathoracic reconstruction: Ann Plast Surg, 2004; 53; 210-16
13.. Moreschi AH, Macedo Neto AV, Barbosa GV, Saueressig MG, Aggressive treatment using muscle flaps or omentopexy in infections of the sternum and anterior mediastinum following sternotomy: J Bras Pneumol, 2008; 34; 654-60
14.. Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tis-sue matrix: The RICH Study.: Surgery., 2012; 152; 498-505
15.. Rosen MJ, Bauer JJ, Harmaty M, Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of the recurrence, surgical site infection, and quality of life after contaminated ventral hernia repair using biosynthetic absorbable mesh: The COBRA study: Ann Surg, 2017; 265; 205-11
16.. Szczerba SR, Dumanian GA, Definitive surgical treatment of infected or exposed ventral hernia mesh: Ann Surg, 2003; 237; 437-41
17.. Fawole AS, Chaparala RP, Ambrose NS, Fate of the inguinal hernia following removal of infected prosthetic mesh: Hernia, 2006; 10; 58-61
18.. Licheri S, Erdas E, Pomata M, Femoral hernia repair with Bard Mesh Dart Plug: Chir Ital, 2004; 56; 705-10
Figures
In Press
Case report
Preserving Cervical Mobility: A Novel Robot-Assisted Approach for Atlas Fracture FixationAm J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.945718
Case report
Neonatal Familiar Cleidocranial Dysplasia: A Case ReportAm J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.946322
Case report
Acute Extensor Pollicis Longus Tendon Injury Associated with a Distal Radius Fracture: A Case ReportAm J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.946399
Case report
Severe Neonatal Asphyxia Associated with Ureaplasma urealyticum Infection: A Case ReportAm J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.946249
Most Viewed Current Articles
21 Jun 2024 : Case report 82,474
Intracranial Parasitic Fetus in a Living Infant: A Case Study with Surgical Intervention and Prognosis Anal...DOI :10.12659/AJCR.944371
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944371
07 Mar 2024 : Case report 48,996
Neurocysticercosis Presenting as Migraine in the United StatesDOI :10.12659/AJCR.943133
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943133
20 Nov 2023 : Case report 23,388
Azithromycin Treatment for Acne Vulgaris: A Case Report on the Risk of Clostridioides difficile InfectionDOI :10.12659/AJCR.941424
Am J Case Rep 2023; 24:e941424
18 Feb 2024 : Case report 22,039
A Case of Thoracic Empyema Caused by Actinomyces naeslundiiDOI :10.12659/AJCR.943030
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943030