Purpose: To evaluate the potential of synthetic surgical meshes (Marlex® mesh [C.R. Bard, Inc., Murray Hill, NJ]; MYCROMESH® PLUS [W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc., Flagstaff, AZ]; GYNECARE GYNEMESH Nonabsorbable PROLENE∗ Soft Mesh [Ethicon, Somerville, NJ]; and naturally derived surgical mesh materials (DermMatrix™ [Carbon Medical Technologies, St. Paul, MN] and SURGISIS® [Cook Surgical, Spencer, IN]) to serve as a nidus for microbial attachment and growth, thus exacerbating surgical site infection.
Methods: Meshes were implanted subcutaneously in mice and inoculated with 104 colony-forming units (cfu) of Staphylococcus aureus. Mice were euthanized four days later, and the implants were removed, homogenized, and cultured using a standard agar pour plate method to determine the number of viable bacteria that could be recovered from each implant.
Results: The Marlex mesh and Gynecare Gynemesh PS were comparable and “neutral” to infection, the average number of bacteria recovered being 1.61 × 105 and 5.41 × 104 cfu, respectively. Mycromesh Plus, with its antibacterial coating, resulted in a reduction in the number of bacteria recovered, the average being 1.61 × 101 cfu. Naturally derived meshes were considered to potentiate infection on the basis of macroscopic observation of infection and significantly increased numbers of bacteria recovered from the implant: 1.84 × 108 cfu from DermMatrix and 3.17 × 107 cfu from Surgisis.
Conclusion: The synthetic meshes did not potentiate infection in this model, whereas the naturally-derived materials did. As this preclinical model was able to detect differences between different implant materials, it may have utility in assessing the infection potentiation properties of newly developed materials.
