However in selected cases such a kind of materials could offers a very trustworthy
alternative. The present case demonstrated the possibility to treat infections also by multi-resistant bacteria with the contemporary implantation of a biologic mesh. The described case was very challenging for the necessity to repair TW and the impossibility to implant foreign body. The Pseudomonas Aeruginosa MRSA infected wound, in fact reduced the therapeutic options. The patients Thiazovivin supplier needed a procedure as shorter and as less invasive as possible. He could hardly tolerate a long TW reconstructive procedure as in elective patients. If biologics demonstrated to have usefulness properties, as counterpart the main obstacle to their use is the cost. It is absolutely higher than synthetic mesh, and in patients without infected or, at least potentially contaminated field the use of biologics have not a clearly stated rationale. Conclusions Collamend® demonstrated its usefulness in thoracic wall reconstruction even in trauma patients and infected fields. Biological prosthesis confirmed to be a good alternative to synthetic materials either in reconstructive thoracic surgery. However dedicated studies from high experienced centers are needed. References 1. Holton LH 3rd, Chung T, Silverman
RP, et al.: Comparison of acellular dermal matrix and synthetic mesh for lateral chest wall reconstruction RG7112 price in a rabbit model. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007, 119:1238–46.selleck inhibitor PubMedCrossRef 2. Ge PS, Imai TA, Aboulian A, VanNatta TL: The use of acellular dermal matrix for chest wall reconstruction. Ann Thor Surg 2010, 90:1799–1804.CrossRef 3. Zardo P, Zhang R, Wiegmann B, Haverich A, Fischer S: Biological Materials for Diaphragmatic Repair: Initial Experiences with the PeriGuard Repair Patch®. Thorac Cardiov
Surg 2011, 59:40–44.CrossRef 4. Rocco G, Fazioli F, Scognamiglio F, et al.: The combination of multiple materials in the creation of an artificial anterior chest cage after extensive demolition for recurrent chondrosarcoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007, 133:1112–1114.PubMedCrossRef 5. Hanna WC, Ferri LE, Fata P, et al.: The current status of traumatic diaphragmatic injury: lessons learned from 105 patients over 13 years. Ann Thorac Surg 2008, 85:1044–1048.PubMedCrossRef 6. Weyant MJ, Bains MS, Venkatraman E, et al.: Results of chest wall resection and reconstruction with Methane monooxygenase and without rigid prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2006, 81:279–85.PubMedCrossRef 7. Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, Fini M, Gazzotti F, Giardino R, Pinna AD: Peritoneal adhesions to prosthetic materials: an experimental comparative study of treated and untreated polypropylene meshes placed in the abdominal cavity. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2009,19(3):369–74.PubMedCrossRef 8. Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delaney JP: Experimental evaluation of four biologic prostheses for abdominal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 2007, 11:1275–1285.PubMedCrossRef 9.