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

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. Sterile fragments of Optilene(A (R)) (Op), Surgipro (TM) (Surg), Preclude(A (R)) (Precl), TIGR(A (R)) (TIGR), Bio-A(A (R)) (BioA), Permacol (TM) (Perm), Surgisis(A (R)) (SIS), and Tutomesh(A (R)) (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. Sa and Se showed a high affinity for the absorbable meshes (TIGR, BioA, Perm, SIS, Tuto) (p < 0.001). Precl yielded the lowest bacterial loads (p < 0.001). Surg, Precl and BioA underwent no substantial change over time, while Op (p < 0.001) and TIGR (p < 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 < 0.001). SEM and light microscopy observations revealed planktonic bacteria and biofilms on the polymer surface and bacterial niches in biomesh pores. 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.