• Save
Meshes and bariatric surgery for argentina
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,194
On Slideshare
1,194
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Prosthetics in Complex Bariatric Abdominal Wall Reconstruction
    Garth R Jacobsen, M.D.
    Director UCSD Hernia Center
    Surgical Program Director
    Center for the Future of Surgery
    UC San Diego Department of Surgery
  • 2. Bias?
    W.L. Gore: Honoraria: Speaking, Consulting, Writing, Proctering, Fellowship Support
    Ethicon Honoraria: Speaking, Consulting, Research Grants, Proctering, Fellowship Support
    USGI: Honoraria: Speaking, Consulting, Research Grants, Proctoring
    Covidien Honoraria: Speaking
    LifeCell: Honoraria: Speaking, Consulting
    Davol: Honorarium, Speaking
    MTF: Honorarium, Writing
    Novus: Honoraria; Consulting
  • 3. Bariatric Surgery
    Obese patients more commonly have hernias
    Most obesity operations involve transection of the GI tract
    Well followed group
  • 4. “If we could artificially produce tissues of the density and toughness of fascia and tendon, the secret of the radical cure of hernias would be discovered”
    Theodore Billroth
    1829-1894
  • 5. “Throughout the body, contractile dynamic muscular tissue resists strain and stress better than fascia and ligaments”
    Ralph Ger 1983
  • 6. Components Separation
  • 7. Ramirez Operative Technique
  • 8. Net Gain
    Release of external oblique
    2 cm upper
    4 cm mid
    2 cm lower
    Release of the posterior rectus sheath
    3 cm upper
    5 cm mid
    3 cm lower
    Total Gain
    5 cm upper
    9 cm mid
    5 cm lower
  • 9. Should We Reinforce?
    No large level 1 data sets exist
    Traditionally Expensive
    Anecdotal reports and small case series report recurrence rates from zero to 35%
    Onlay, Underlay, Lateral, Sandwich?
  • 10. Factors associated with performance
    Raw Material and Design
    Polymer/tissue
    Strength
    Elasticity
    Architecture
    Pore Size
    Fiber Size
    Density
    Weave
    Bioreactivity
  • 11. Synthetic Nonabsorbable Polymers
  • 12. Polypropylene
    Polypropylene (Most Common)
    Hydrophobic
    Resistant to significant degradation
    Induces biologic reactivity
    Weight, filament size, pore size, and architecture
  • 13. Polyester
    Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
    Hydrophilic
    Inflamatory response similar to PP
    Subject to degradation over time
    Subject to contraction
    Brand Names
    Mersiline – Ethicon
    Parietex – Covidien
  • 14. Polytetraflouroethylene
    ePTFE
    Good Biocompatibility
    Highly engineered (3 to 100 um pore sizes)
    Subject to contracture
    Adhesion Resistant
  • 15. Coated Nonabsorbables
    Attenuate host response to the prosthetic
    Variations for both PP and PE
    Useful when prosthetic is exposed to viscera
    Examples:
    C-Qur (Atrium)
    Omega-3 FA
    80 Days
    Proceed (Ethicon)
    Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose (ORC)
    Absorbable PDS (polydiaxanone)
    14 days
    Physiomesh (Ethicon)
    Monocryl backing
    Parietex Composite
    Polyethlene Glycol, Glycerol
    14 days
  • 16. Partially Absorbable
    Reduce the density of the nonabsorbable polymer component
    Increase intra-operative handling characteristics
    Vypro II (Ethicon)
    PP and Polyglactin (Vicryl)
    Ultrapro (Ethicon)
    PP Poliglecaprone-25 (Monocryl)
  • 17. Composite
    Multiple mesh types combined into one sheet
  • 18. Light vs Heavy
    Most commonly utilized mesh in use today is heavy weight polypropylene
    Marlex, Prolene, Surgipro, 3D Max
    Good handling characteristics
    High surgeon satisfaction
    Mechanically over engineered
    26 N/cm vs >50 N/cm
    Potentially higher rates of pain, fistula formation, infection and mesh contraction
    Less compliant abdominal wall
  • 19. What is Lightweight?
    Bachman S, Ramshaw B. Prosthetic material in ventral hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am. Feb 2008;88(1):101-112, ix.
  • 20. Lightweight Offerings
    Davol
    Bard 3dMax light
    Bard Composix LP
    Ethicon Ultrapro
    Gore Infinit
  • 21. Biologic Prosthetics
  • 22. Biologic Prosthetics
    Based on a collagen scaffold derived from a donor source
    Dermal sources
    Human, porcine and fetal
    Other sources
    Porcine small intestinal submucosa (layered)
    Bovine pericardium
    Decellularized to leave only organized collagen and extracellular ground tissue
  • 23. Biologic Prosthetics Continued
    CrosslinkedvsNoncrosslinked
    Crosslinking resists collagenases
    Crosslinked meshes can last for years, uncrosslinked will be resorbed in 3 months
    Potential Advantages
    Potential for infection resistance
    Low adhesion formation*
  • 24. Cost
    Bachman S, Ramshaw B. Prosthetic material in ventral hernia repair: how do I choose? SurgClin North Am. Feb 2008;88(1):101-112, ix.
  • 25. Synthetic “biologics”
    Synthetic bioabsorbable (glycolide: trimethylene carbonate) copolymer
    Native collagen ingrowth
    Fully resorbable in 6 months
  • 26. So Which One is Best?
    Complex decision with no clear answer
    Type of procedure being done
    Clinical situation
    Desired handling characteristics
    Products available at your institution
    Cost of the product
  • 27. UCSD expierience
    Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database
    Inclusion: Ventral hernia operated upon with the goal to restore native anatomy with investigation of a novel bio absorbable buttress
  • 28. Demographics
  • 29. Operative Intervention
  • 30. Wound Class
  • 31. Reconstruction Technique
  • 32. Mesh Placement
  • 33. LOS and Complications
  • 34. EO to EO onlay Reinforcement
  • 35. Case Examples
    Infected crosslinked biologic mesh and 8 months post op BIOA EO to EO after complete components
  • 36. Case Examples
    Infected synthetic mesh and 9 months post op BIOA EO to EO after anterior sheath release
  • 37. Pet CT 3 months, anterior onlay
  • 38. Case Examples
    Post operative infected seroma (proteus/enterococcus) day 15, treated with IR drainage and 8 months post op BIOA EO to EO after complete components
  • 39. Case Examples
    54 year old mail with large defect and infected mesh
  • 40.
  • 41. Completed Components
  • 42. Large Sheet Anterior Application
  • 43. Complications
    Flap Necrosis
    Both identifiable at 1 week
    Both required intraoperative debridement and vac placement
    Pt 1: 66 yo female, bmi 30, 180 cm defect, repair 6, panniculectomy, onlay Bio-A, 1 year fu doing well
    Pt 2: 66 yo female, bmi 26, 6 cm defect, repair 3, panniculectomy, onlay Bio-A, 50 days post op, scheduled for scar revision
  • 44. Tracheostomy
    60 yo female with hx of repair x 7, infected biologic, and 900 sq cm defect.
    Release of Anterior and posterior sheath
    Onaly Bio A Butress
    ICU Paralytics for high Compartment pressures
    Trach day 8
    Decannulated and discharged postoperative day 15
    7 months out and doing well.
  • 45. Seromas
    3 total
    1 did not require drainage and spontaneously resolved
    1 drained in office x 1
    1 Infected requiring IR drainage
    Initial operation was MRSA mesh excision
  • 46. Conclusions
    There are many materials from which to choose from; surgeon knowledge of particular characteristics is key
    New classes of mesh may provide cost and patient advantage
    Bio Absorbable matrices are proving successful as a supportive adjuncts to complex abdominal wall restoration.
  • 47. Thanks