PURPOSE: Evaluate the rabbit augmented bladder with Pelvicol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty New Zealand rabbits were divided into 4 groups. Bladder augmentation was performed using a 10 x 10 mm sized porcine acellular collagen matrix. The material was placed on the dome of the bladder wall as a patch with 5-0 polyglycolic sutures. The bladder was resected on the 7th, 14th day, 30th and 90th days, and processed for histological analysis. RESULTS: No stone formation was found in the first, second and fourth weeks. In the first week, there was inflammatory appearance and roughness in the reconstructed area when compared to other sites on the bladder wall. The material could not be seen in some bladders because of acute inflammatory reaction. The normal bladder epithelium was found on the part of the bladder wall that follows the surface of the eroded material. In the second week, edema was observed through the bladder wall. Perivesical fat tissue increased and it was not easy to distinguish it from the surrounding area. In the fourth week, the bladder wall was thickened and there was a sensation of hardness present. The inner and outer surface of the material was darker than in the other bladders. In the third month, there was no inflammatory reaction; however, there was micro calcification and irregular detrusor regeneration. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvicol cannot be suitable material for bladder augmentation because of the resultant micro calcification, thickening of the bladder wall and irregular development of detrusor regeneration.
PURPOSE: Evaluate the rabbit augmented bladder with Pelvicol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty New Zealand rabbits were divided into 4 groups. Bladder augmentation was performed using a 10 x 10 mm sized porcine acellular collagen matrix. The material was placed on the dome of the bladder wall as a patch with 5-0 polyglycolic sutures. The bladder was resected on the 7th, 14th day, 30th and 90th days, and processed for histological analysis. RESULTS: No stone formation was found in the first, second and fourth weeks. In the first week, there was inflammatory appearance and roughness in the reconstructed area when compared to other sites on the bladder wall. The material could not be seen in some bladders because of acute inflammatory reaction. The normal bladder epithelium was found on the part of the bladder wall that follows the surface of the eroded material. In the second week, edema was observed through the bladder wall. Perivesical fat tissue increased and it was not easy to distinguish it from the surrounding area. In the fourth week, the bladder wall was thickened and there was a sensation of hardness present. The inner and outer surface of the material was darker than in the other bladders. In the third month, there was no inflammatory reaction; however, there was micro calcification and irregular detrusor regeneration. CONCLUSIONS:Pelvicol cannot be suitable material for bladder augmentation because of the resultant micro calcification, thickening of the bladder wall and irregular development of detrusor regeneration.