Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?

• Published in: Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery 2015-12, Vol.19 (6), p.965-973
• Main Authors: Pérez-Köhler, B., Sotomayor, S., Rodríguez, M., Gegúndez, M. I., Pascual, G., Bellón, J. M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Bacterial Adhesion; Biocompatible Materials; Collagen; In Vitro Techniques; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Article; Polymers; Prostheses and Implants - microbiology; Staphylococcus aureus - physiology; Staphylococcus epidermidis - physiology; Surgical Mesh - microbiology
• ISSN: 1265-4906; 1248-9204
• DOI: 10.1007/s10029-015-1378-1

Purpose Although clinical data suggest the similar performance of collagen-based biological prosthetic materials to some polymer materials, the use of a biomesh for abdominal hernia repair in a setting of infection is controversial. This in vitro study compares the adhesion of two Staphylococcus strains to polymer and biological meshes. Methods Sterile fragments of Optilene ® ( Op ), Surgipro™ ( Surg ), Preclude ® ( Precl ), TIGR ® ( TIGR ), Bio-A ® ( BioA ), Permacol™ ( Perm ), Surgisis ® ( SIS ), and Tutomesh ® ( Tuto ) were inoculated with 10 6 CFU of S. aureus ( Sa ) or S. epidermidis ( Se ) ( n  = 18 per strain per mesh). The first five meshes are polymer materials while Perm , SIS and Tuto are biomeshes. After 24/48 h of incubation, bacterial adhesion was examined by sonication, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and light microscopy. Results Sa and Se showed a high affinity for the absorbable meshes ( TIGR , BioA , Perm , SIS , Tuto ) ( p