Skip to main content
Log in

The omentum–polypropylene sandwich technique: an attractive method to repair large abdominal-wall defects in the presence of contamination or infection

  • Case Report
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Repair of abdominal wall defects in the presence of contamination or infection continues to be a significant problem for surgeons. The loss of tissue warrants reinforcement of the abdominal wall, preferably by autologous material. However, autologous repair often requires extensive operations that carry a high morbidity. Moreover, the lack of sufficient fascia may be so extensive that insertion of a prosthetic material is inevitable. Polypropylene (PP) is the most appropriate material to use under these circumstances, but without coverage, the mesh will wrinkle and ultimately be extruded. The present report describes an alternative technique for repair of heavily contaminated abdominal-wall defects.

Patients

Two patients with a very large heavily contaminated abdominal wall defect due to necrotizing fasciitis in one patient and a lion’s bite in the other were treated with the omental sandwich technique. After radical debridement, resulting in a full thickness loss of the abdominal wall, the peritoneum was restored using absorbable polyglactin mesh. The fascial defect was bridged with a PP mesh that was fixed to the adjacent myoaponeurosis and covered with a pedicled omental flap. In both patients the omentum was covered with a split skin.

Results

Wound healing in both patients was without complications. Both patients had a sufficient abdominal wall, without signs of herniation after a follow up of 4 and 30 months, respectively.

Conclusion

The omental sandwich technique is an attractive method to repair large abdominal wall defects in the presence of contamination or overt infection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1a–d

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Williams JK, Carlson GW, de Chalain T, Howell R, Coleman JJ (1998) Role of tensor fasciae latae in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 101:713–718

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wouters DB, Krom RA, Slooff MJ, Kootstra G, Kuijjer PJ (1983) The use of Marlex mesh in patients with generalized peritonitis and multiple organ system failure. Surg Gynecol Obstet 156:609–614

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Geldere D, Langenhorst B, de Jong D, van der Wilt GJ, van Goor H, Bleichrodt RP (2004) Repair of large midline incisional hernias with polypropylene mesh: comparison of three operative techniques. Hernia 8(1):56–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Voyles CR, Richardson JD, Bland KI, Tobin GR, Flint LM, Polk HC Jr (1981) Emergency abdominal wall reconstruction with polypropylene mesh: short-term benefits versus long-term complications. Ann Surg 194:219–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones JW, Jurkovich GJ (1989) Polypropylene mesh closure of infected abdominal wounds. Am Surg 55:73–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Simmermacher RKJ, Bleichrodt RP, Schakenraad JM (1992) Review: biomaterials for abdominal wall reconstruction. Cells Mater 2:281–290

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bleichrodt RP, Simmermacher RK, van der Lei B, Schakenraad JM (1993) Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch versus polypropylene mesh for the repair of contaminated defects of the abdominal wall. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176(1):18–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fansler RF, Taheri P, Cullinane C, Sabates B, Flint LM (1995) Polypropylene mesh closure of the complicated abdominal wound. Am J Surg 170:15–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brandt CP, McHenry CR, Jacobs DG, Piotrowski JJ, Priebe PP (1995) Polypropylene mesh closure after emergency laparotomy: morbidity and outcome. Surgery 118:736–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133:378–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Muttardi N, Lancaster K, Ng R, Mercer D (2005) The sandwich omental flap for abdominal wall defect reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 58(6):841–844

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Rosman C, Bemelmans MH, de Jong D, van Nieuwenhoven EJ, van Engeland MI, Bleichrodt RP (2003) “Components separation technique” for the repair of large abdominal wall hernias. J Am Coll Surg 196(1):32–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Koppe MJ, Bodegom ME, Hendriks T, Bleichrodt RP (2007) Interposition of polyglactin mesh does not prevent adhesion formation between viscera and polypropylene mesh. J Surg Res (in press)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. P. Bleichrodt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bleichrodt, R.P., Malyar, A.W., de Vries Reilingh, T.S. et al. The omentum–polypropylene sandwich technique: an attractive method to repair large abdominal-wall defects in the presence of contamination or infection. Hernia 11, 71–74 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-006-0174-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-006-0174-3

Keywords

Navigation