Improved biomechanical resistance using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene composite-structure prosthesis.

We designed a composite-structure (laminar-reticular) prosthesis using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) as the biomaterial in an attempt to improve the biomechanical resistance of the same biomaterial in the form of a single lamina. Defects (7 x 5 cm) were created in the abdominal wall of male white New Zealand rabbits (n = 24). The defects, which comprised all the wall layers except the skin, were then repaired with one of two types of ePTFE prosthesis. One was a latest generation laminar prosthesis (DualMesh, or Gore-Tex) and the other was a composite of in-house design (CV-4 mesh composite) made by suturing a mesh woven out of ePTFE thread to an ePTFE lamina. After sacrificing the animals at 14 or 90 days after surgery, implant specimens were subjected to morphologic analysis (light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy); and adhesion formation, neoperitoneal thickness, and biomechanical strength were evaluated. No significant differences were recorded between the two prosthesis regarding the consistency of adhesions or the area occupied by adhesions (DM 0.17 +/- 0.06; CV-4 mesh composite 0.18 +/- 0.08 cm2) (p > 0.05). Notably, improved tissue integration was achieved using the composite prosthesis; its reticular side became infiltrated by dense connective tissue that enveloped the mesh filaments. In contrast, the DM prosthesis became encapsulated by host tissue. The neoperitoneum induced by both prostheses was homogeneous and orderly, with a layer of typical mesothelial cells lining its inner surface. The thickness of the neoperitoneum was similar (p > 0.05) for the two implants (385.0 +/- 3.4 vs. 390 +/- 3.1 microm), although significantly higher (p < 0.05) mechanical resistance values were recorded for the composite prosthesis (26.75 +/- 3.71 vs. 14.11 +/- 3.71 N). Our findings suggest that the use of a reticular and a laminar ePTFE layer in the same prosthesis leads to better repair and biomechanical behavior compared to the use of a single-structure laminar implant.