Scheme 1. (a) Schematic illustration for the fabrication of hierarchical surface with different zwitterionic structures. (b) Bactericidal mechanism on demand of the modified hierarchical meshes for combating an infected hernia.

Fig. 1. Surface characterization of the modified samples. (a) ATR-FTIR spectra of various sample surfaces. (b) XPS spectra of the modified samples. (c) Surface zeta potentials of different samples. (d) Core-level spectra of N 1s, Br 3d, and P 2p from different samples. (e) Water contact angles of the samples. (f) Schematic procedure for construction and indication of patterned PP-g-DS surface. (g) Fluorescent image of the patterned PP-g-DS surface via FITC-BSA selective adhesion. The error bars indicate the standard deviation (n = 3).

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of antifouling property of the hierarchical polymer brush modified surface with different zwitterionic structures. (b) Representative fluorescence microscopy images of different surfaces after adsorption of BSA and Fg proteins. (c) Fluorescence gray statistics of various samples.

Fig. 3. (a) Responsive bactericidal efficacies of various surfaces evaluated by colony-forming units (CFUs) of residual S. aureus and E. coli on sample surfaces, bacterial viability, and morphology (The bacteria in SEM images were processed with false-color). (b) Corresponding log reductions of S. aureus and E. coli in the bacterial number of various sample surfaces. The error bars indicated the standard deviation (n = 3).

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic illustration of the responsive bactericidal behaviors of different surfaces via co-incubation bacteria with phosphatase inhibitors. (b) LB-agar plates photographs of S. aureus and E. coli detached from different surfaces and bacterial viability and morphology evaluation via CLSM and SEM (The bacteria in SEM images were processed with false color).

Fig. 5. Biocompatibility evaluation of various samples in vitro and in vivo. (a) Hemolysis images and (b) hemolytic activities of different samples. (c) Cell viability after being incubated with various samples. (d) Histological images of the different samples treated tissues after H&E staining. The error bars indicate the standard deviation (n = 3).

Fig. 6. (a) In vivo therapeutic effect of different samples as anti-infected implantation materials in mice model. (b) Images of different samples as anti-infection implantation materials in visual. (c) LB-agar photographs of bacteria colonies harvested from different samples and tissues. (d) Log bacteria number of different samples and tissues. (e) Representative images of H&E staining.

Fig. 7. (a) In vivo evaluation of PP-g-DPS as an anti-infection mesh in a rat model of abdominal wall hernia. (b) Photographs of S. aureus-infected hernia mesh on the rat with different treatments after 3 days of therapy. (c) LB-agar photographs of bacteria colonies harvested from different meshes. (d) Bacteria number of different meshes. (e) Representative images of H&E staining. (f) Evaluation of adhesion resistance of different meshes.