Literature DB >> 16855805

Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response.

Dirk Weyhe1, Inge Schmitz, Orlin Belyaev, Robert Grabs, Klaus-Michael Müller, Waldemar Uhl, Volker Zumtobel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mesh implantation is a standard procedure in hernia repair. It provides low recurrence rate but increases complication rate due to foreign-body reaction induced by alloplastic materials in surrounding tissues. It is believed that biocompatibility of meshes may be improved by reducing their weight per meter squared (m2) and altering the implant structure. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of weight and structure as determinants of mesh biocompatibility.
METHOD: Thirty-six Wistar rats were studied. In 12 animals, conventional polypropylene (heavy) meshes (HM) were implanted; in other 12, material-reduced (light) microporous polypropylene meshes (LM); and the remaining 12 served as a sham-operated control group. Meshes were explanted after 21 and 90 days (6 animals per group). All samples were examined by light and electron microscopies. Integration of meshes in surrounding tissue, inflammatory response, fibrotic reactions, and structural changes were recorded. Quantification of the inflammatory response was achieved by CD-68 marking of macrophages and counting their number per surface unit.
RESULTS: After 21 days, there was no significant difference in thickness of surrounding connective tissue between meshes in all groups studied. After 90 days, thickness of connective tissue decreased in both groups, and fibrotic reaction in the mesh bed was significantly less in the HM group. Total amount of macrophages per millimeter squared (mm2) decreased with time in HM and LM samples but was significantly lower in the HM group on day 21 (43.5%) and day 90 (46.7%).
CONCLUSION: This study found worse biocompatibility of LM compared with HM. Thus, the amount of implanted mesh was not the main determinant of biocompatibility (expressed as successful incorporation and diminished foreign-body reaction) but the size of the pores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16855805     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-0601-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  16 in total

1.  Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias.

Authors:  U Klinge; B Klosterhalfen; M Müller; V Schumpelick
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1999-07

2.  [Minimized polypropylene mesh for preperitoneal net plasty (PNP) of incisional hernias].

Authors:  V Schumpelick; B Klosterhalfen; M Müller; U Klinge
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants.

Authors:  K Junge; U Klinge; A Prescher; P Giboni; M Niewiera; V Schumpelick
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Late mesh rejection as a complication to transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair.

Authors:  C Hofbauer; P V Andersen; P Juul; N Qvist
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature review and clinical experience.

Authors:  G J Morris-Stiff; L E Hughes
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  [Laparoscopic hernioplasty (TAPP)--complications and recurrences in 900 operations].

Authors:  R Bittner; B Leibl; K Kraft; P Däubler; J Schwarz
Journal:  Zentralbl Chir       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 0.942

7.  The recurrence rate in hernia surgery. How important is it?

Authors:  I M Rutkow
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1995-06

8.  The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects. Experimental study in dogs.

Authors:  F H Greca; J B de Paula; M L Biondo-Simões; F D da Costa; A P da Silva; S Time; A Mansur
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.739

9.  Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  P J O'Dwyer; A N Kingsnorth; R G Molloy; P K Small; B Lammers; G Horeyseck
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs.

Authors:  U Klinge; B Klosterhalfen; M Müller; A P Ottinger; V Schumpelick
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1998-12
View more
  36 in total

1.  An elastomeric patch electrospun from a blended solution of dermal extracellular matrix and biodegradable polyurethane for rat abdominal wall repair.

Authors:  Yi Hong; Keisuke Takanari; Nicholas J Amoroso; Ryotaro Hashizume; Ellen P Brennan-Pierce; John M Freund; Stephen F Badylak; William R Wagner
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part C Methods       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 3.056

2.  Impact of endoscopic and histological evaluations of two different types of mesh plug for a groin hernia model.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Mandai; Minoru Naito; Tatsuro Hayashi; Hiroaki Asano; Hideo Ino; Kazunori Tsukuda; Shinichiro Miyoshi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Searching for the best polypropylene mesh to be used in bowel contamination.

Authors:  A Díaz-Godoy; M A García-Ureña; J López-Monclús; V Vega Ruíz; D Melero Montes; N Erquinigo Agurto
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2010-12-09       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Mesh implants: An overview of crucial mesh parameters.

Authors:  Lei-Ming Zhu; Philipp Schuster; Uwe Klinge
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-10-27

Review 5.  Improving outcomes in hernia repair by the use of light meshes--a comparison of different implant constructions based on a critical appraisal of the literature.

Authors:  Dirk Weyhe; Orlin Belyaev; Christophe Müller; Kirsten Meurer; Karl-Heinz Bauer; Georgios Papapostolou; Waldemar Uhl
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response.

Authors:  U Klinge
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response.

Authors:  Grigoris Chatzimavroudis; Basilis Papaziogas; Ioannis Koutelidakis; Konstantinos Atmatzidis
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  Surgical mesh for ventral incisional hernia repairs: Understanding mesh design.

Authors:  Ali Rastegarpour; Michael Cheung; Madhurima Vardhan; Mohamed M Ibrahim; Charles E Butler; Howard Levinson
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 0.947

Review 9.  Mesh biocompatibility: effects of cellular inflammation and tissue remodelling.

Authors:  Karsten Junge; Marcel Binnebösel; Klaus T von Trotha; Raphael Rosch; Uwe Klinge; Ulf P Neumann; Petra Lynen Jansen
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 10.  Biocompatibility of prosthetic meshes in abdominal surgery.

Authors:  Marcel Binnebösel; Klaus T von Trotha; Petra Lynen Jansen; Joachim Conze; Ulf P Neumann; Karsten Junge
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 9.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.