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

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 str...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3e79b1ea20193c275c4abd141290f11bc20d047fe6f763f637b92203da0552dd3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3e79b1ea20193c275c4abd141290f11bc20d047fe6f763f637b92203da0552dd3
container_end_page 973
container_issue 6
container_start_page 965
container_title Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery
container_volume 19
creator Pérez-Köhler, B.
Sotomayor, S.
Rodríguez, M.
Gegúndez, M. I.
Pascual, G.
Bellón, J. M.
description 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  
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10029-015-1378-1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1751229520</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1751229520</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3e79b1ea20193c275c4abd141290f11bc20d047fe6f763f637b92203da0552dd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhS0EouXCA7BBltiwCfjfCRtUqkKRKnUD68ixJ72ukvhiJ63uo_RtO5cUhJBQNx5r_J1jew4hrzl7zxmzHwquoqkY1xWXtq74E3LMhaqrRjD19LA3ulINM0fkRSnXjLFamfo5ORK6NoKJ-pjcfXZ-hhzdQF3YQolponOiXUxDuooe2zeQy1LoLg37ETLd5VTmLczR09GtykKXAoHGiboupDFOqLp1w0AD9OBnmmHnYv5IQ6KoLEBHKFhp2aZb6qY9DbHvIcPksYkuN3HO6dNL8qxHb3j1UDfkx5ez76fn1cXl12-nJxeVV1bPlQTbdBycYLyRXljtFb6CKy4a1nPeecECU7YH01sjeyNt1wjBZHBMaxGC3JB3qy_-7OcCZW7HWDwMg5sgLaXlVnMhGo2ax1Fpla2Vkoi-_Qe9TkvGyfyijBG1FhYpvlIep1oy9O0ux9HlfctZe4i4XSNuMeL2EDEuG_LmwXnpRgh_FL8zRUCsQMGj6QryX1f_1_UeXGiygw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1736628527</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Pérez-Köhler, B. ; Sotomayor, S. ; Rodríguez, M. ; Gegúndez, M. I. ; Pascual, G. ; Bellón, J. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Köhler, B. ; Sotomayor, S. ; Rodríguez, M. ; Gegúndez, M. I. ; Pascual, G. ; Bellón, J. M.</creatorcontrib><description>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  &lt; 0.001). Precl yielded the lowest bacterial loads ( p  &lt; 0.001). Surg , Precl and BioA underwent no substantial change over time, while Op ( p  &lt; 0.001) and TIGR ( p  &lt;  0.05 ) showed decreasing bacterial loads during incubation. The Sa -contaminated biomeshes behaved similarly while biomeshes inoculated with Se returned higher bacterial yields at 48 h, especially SIS ( p  &lt; 0.001). SEM and light microscopy observations revealed planktonic bacteria and biofilms on the polymer surface and bacterial niches in biomesh pores. Conclusions Within 48 h of contamination, the absorbable polymer and biological meshes exhibited high bacterial loads. Given their lower affinity for both bacterial strains, the conventional non-absorbable polymer materials could be better candidates for use in contaminated surgical fields.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1265-4906</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1248-9204</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10029-015-1378-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25862028</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Paris: Springer Paris</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Bacterial Adhesion ; Biocompatible Materials ; Collagen ; In Vitro Techniques ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Original Article ; Polymers ; Prostheses and Implants - microbiology ; Staphylococcus aureus - physiology ; Staphylococcus epidermidis - physiology ; Surgical Mesh - microbiology</subject><ispartof>Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2015-12, Vol.19 (6), p.965-973</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag France 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3e79b1ea20193c275c4abd141290f11bc20d047fe6f763f637b92203da0552dd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3e79b1ea20193c275c4abd141290f11bc20d047fe6f763f637b92203da0552dd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25862028$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Köhler, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sotomayor, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gegúndez, M. I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pascual, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellón, J. M.</creatorcontrib><title>Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?</title><title>Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery</title><addtitle>Hernia</addtitle><addtitle>Hernia</addtitle><description>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  &lt; 0.001). Precl yielded the lowest bacterial loads ( p  &lt; 0.001). Surg , Precl and BioA underwent no substantial change over time, while Op ( p  &lt; 0.001) and TIGR ( p  &lt;  0.05 ) showed decreasing bacterial loads during incubation. The Sa -contaminated biomeshes behaved similarly while biomeshes inoculated with Se returned higher bacterial yields at 48 h, especially SIS ( p  &lt; 0.001). SEM and light microscopy observations revealed planktonic bacteria and biofilms on the polymer surface and bacterial niches in biomesh pores. Conclusions Within 48 h of contamination, the absorbable polymer and biological meshes exhibited high bacterial loads. Given their lower affinity for both bacterial strains, the conventional non-absorbable polymer materials could be better candidates for use in contaminated surgical fields.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Bacterial Adhesion</subject><subject>Biocompatible Materials</subject><subject>Collagen</subject><subject>In Vitro Techniques</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Polymers</subject><subject>Prostheses and Implants - microbiology</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus - physiology</subject><subject>Staphylococcus epidermidis - physiology</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - microbiology</subject><issn>1265-4906</issn><issn>1248-9204</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhS0EouXCA7BBltiwCfjfCRtUqkKRKnUD68ixJ72ukvhiJ63uo_RtO5cUhJBQNx5r_J1jew4hrzl7zxmzHwquoqkY1xWXtq74E3LMhaqrRjD19LA3ulINM0fkRSnXjLFamfo5ORK6NoKJ-pjcfXZ-hhzdQF3YQolponOiXUxDuooe2zeQy1LoLg37ETLd5VTmLczR09GtykKXAoHGiboupDFOqLp1w0AD9OBnmmHnYv5IQ6KoLEBHKFhp2aZb6qY9DbHvIcPksYkuN3HO6dNL8qxHb3j1UDfkx5ez76fn1cXl12-nJxeVV1bPlQTbdBycYLyRXljtFb6CKy4a1nPeecECU7YH01sjeyNt1wjBZHBMaxGC3JB3qy_-7OcCZW7HWDwMg5sgLaXlVnMhGo2ax1Fpla2Vkoi-_Qe9TkvGyfyijBG1FhYpvlIep1oy9O0ux9HlfctZe4i4XSNuMeL2EDEuG_LmwXnpRgh_FL8zRUCsQMGj6QryX1f_1_UeXGiygw</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>Pérez-Köhler, B.</creator><creator>Sotomayor, S.</creator><creator>Rodríguez, M.</creator><creator>Gegúndez, M. I.</creator><creator>Pascual, G.</creator><creator>Bellón, J. M.</creator><general>Springer Paris</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?</title><author>Pérez-Köhler, B. ; Sotomayor, S. ; Rodríguez, M. ; Gegúndez, M. I. ; Pascual, G. ; Bellón, J. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3e79b1ea20193c275c4abd141290f11bc20d047fe6f763f637b92203da0552dd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Bacterial Adhesion</topic><topic>Biocompatible Materials</topic><topic>Collagen</topic><topic>In Vitro Techniques</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Polymers</topic><topic>Prostheses and Implants - microbiology</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus - physiology</topic><topic>Staphylococcus epidermidis - physiology</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - microbiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Köhler, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sotomayor, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gegúndez, M. I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pascual, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellón, J. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pérez-Köhler, B.</au><au>Sotomayor, S.</au><au>Rodríguez, M.</au><au>Gegúndez, M. I.</au><au>Pascual, G.</au><au>Bellón, J. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?</atitle><jtitle>Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery</jtitle><stitle>Hernia</stitle><addtitle>Hernia</addtitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>965</spage><epage>973</epage><pages>965-973</pages><issn>1265-4906</issn><eissn>1248-9204</eissn><abstract>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  &lt; 0.001). Precl yielded the lowest bacterial loads ( p  &lt; 0.001). Surg , Precl and BioA underwent no substantial change over time, while Op ( p  &lt; 0.001) and TIGR ( p  &lt;  0.05 ) showed decreasing bacterial loads during incubation. The Sa -contaminated biomeshes behaved similarly while biomeshes inoculated with Se returned higher bacterial yields at 48 h, especially SIS ( p  &lt; 0.001). SEM and light microscopy observations revealed planktonic bacteria and biofilms on the polymer surface and bacterial niches in biomesh pores. Conclusions Within 48 h of contamination, the absorbable polymer and biological meshes exhibited high bacterial loads. Given their lower affinity for both bacterial strains, the conventional non-absorbable polymer materials could be better candidates for use in contaminated surgical fields.</abstract><cop>Paris</cop><pub>Springer Paris</pub><pmid>25862028</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10029-015-1378-1</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1265-4906
ispartof Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2015-12, Vol.19 (6), p.965-973
issn 1265-4906
1248-9204
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1751229520
source Springer Link
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
title Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T19%3A34%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bacterial%20adhesion%20to%20biological%20versus%20polymer%20prosthetic%20materials%20used%20in%20abdominal%20wall%20defect%20repair:%20do%20these%20meshes%20show%20any%20differences%20in%20vitro?&rft.jtitle=Hernia%20:%20the%20journal%20of%20hernias%20and%20abdominal%20wall%20surgery&rft.au=P%C3%A9rez-K%C3%B6hler,%20B.&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=965&rft.epage=973&rft.pages=965-973&rft.issn=1265-4906&rft.eissn=1248-9204&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10029-015-1378-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1751229520%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3e79b1ea20193c275c4abd141290f11bc20d047fe6f763f637b92203da0552dd3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1736628527&rft_id=info:pmid/25862028&rfr_iscdi=true