BACKGROUND: This study compared Parietex composite mesh (PCM) with Sepramesh (SM) in terms of strength of tissue incorporation, adhesion formation, and mesh shrinkage, using an animal model. STUDY DESIGN: A two-phase, prospective, randomized study using 44 New Zealand white rabbits. Each animal underwent creation of a standardized ventral hernia defect, followed by repair using either SM or PCM. Half of each group was sacrificed and examined at 1 month, and the remainder at 5 months. Outcomes measurements were strength of incorporation (SOI), type and area of adhesions (AA), and mesh shrinkage. RESULTS: SOI for PCM was much greater than for SM, both at 1 month (60.8 N versus 42.6 N) and 5 months (70.9 N versus 31.5 N). The incidence of bowel adhesions was lower with PCM than SM, both at 1 month (1 versus 6) and at 5 months (0 versus 4). At 5 months, PCM demonstrated lower AA, both as a percentage of the mesh (5.6% versus 12.8%) and in terms of absolute area involved (321 mm(2) versus 840 mm(2)). PCM underwent considerably more shrinkage than SM, at both 1 month (38.2% versus 18.1%) and 5 months (17.4% versus 6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: PCM demonstrated a substantially stronger SOI, which improved over time, and SOI of SM decreased. PCM was also superior in terms of adhesion prevention, but underwent considerably more shrinkage in this experimental model.
BACKGROUND: This study compared Parietex composite mesh (PCM) with Sepramesh (SM) in terms of strength of tissue incorporation, adhesion formation, and mesh shrinkage, using an animal model. STUDY DESIGN: A two-phase, prospective, randomized study using 44 New Zealand white rabbits. Each animal underwent creation of a standardized ventral hernia defect, followed by repair using either SM or PCM. Half of each group was sacrificed and examined at 1 month, and the remainder at 5 months. Outcomes measurements were strength of incorporation (SOI), type and area of adhesions (AA), and mesh shrinkage. RESULTS: SOI for PCM was much greater than for SM, both at 1 month (60.8 N versus 42.6 N) and 5 months (70.9 N versus 31.5 N). The incidence of bowel adhesions was lower with PCM than SM, both at 1 month (1 versus 6) and at 5 months (0 versus 4). At 5 months, PCM demonstrated lower AA, both as a percentage of the mesh (5.6% versus 12.8%) and in terms of absolute area involved (321 mm(2) versus 840 mm(2)). PCM underwent considerably more shrinkage than SM, at both 1 month (38.2% versus 18.1%) and 5 months (17.4% versus 6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: PCM demonstrated a substantially stronger SOI, which improved over time, and SOI of SM decreased. PCM was also superior in terms of adhesion prevention, but underwent considerably more shrinkage in this experimental model.
Authors: Christoph Brochhausen; Volker H Schmitt; Constanze N E Planck; Taufiek K Rajab; David Hollemann; Christine Tapprich; Bernhard Krämer; Christian Wallwiener; Helmut Hierlemann; Rolf Zehbe; Heinrich Planck; C James Kirkpatrick Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Markus Winny; Lavinia Maegel; Leonie Victoria Grethe; Danny Jonigk; Paul Borchert; Alexander Kaltenborn; Harald Schrem; Juergen Klempnauer; Daniel Poehnert Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Marc H F Schreinemacher; Kevin W Y van Barneveld; Rieky E G Dikmans; Marion J J Gijbels; Jan-Willem M Greve; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-06-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ernst J P Schoenmaeckers; Steef B A van der Valk; Huib W van den Hout; Johan F T J Raymakers; Srdjan Rakic Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 4.584