BACKGROUND: Over the years, reticular prostheses have undergone changes in their structure and composition to give rise to today's partially absorbable lightweight meshes. This study was designed to assess the biological and biomechanical behavior of these prostheses to establish whether they offer any advantages over nonabsorbable lightweight polypropylene prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 7 x 5 cm defects were created in the anterior abdominal wall of New Zealand White rabbits and repaired by securing different prostheses to the edges of the defect with a running 4/0 polypropylene suture. The lightweight biomaterials compared were two nonabsorbable meshes: Parietene and Optilene elastic, and two partially absorbable prostheses: Vypro II and Ultrapro. At 14 and 90 days postimplant, tissue/prosthesis specimens were subjected to histological, immunohistochemical, shrinkage, and biomechanical analyses. RESULTS: Adhesion formation on the peritoneum-facing surface of the meshes was significantly less extensive in the meshes with absorbable components at 90 days postimplant. The newly formed tissue around the prosthetic filaments was comprised of collagen fibers, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and macrophages. The partially absorbable meshes showed higher macrophage proportions (due to remnants of absorbable material and their structure) than the nonabsorbable meshes at 90 days, although differences were not significant. At 90 days postimplant, similar tensile strengths were recorded for all the implants. CONCLUSIONS: All the prosthetic materials induced good host tissue ingrowth, with no significant differences in tensile strength observed. Our findings suggest that partially absorbable lightweight prostheses could offer advantages over nonabsorbable lightweight meshes since less foreign material persists in the recipient, improving abdominal wall compliance.
BACKGROUND: Over the years, reticular prostheses have undergone changes in their structure and composition to give rise to today's partially absorbable lightweight meshes. This study was designed to assess the biological and biomechanical behavior of these prostheses to establish whether they offer any advantages over nonabsorbable lightweight polypropylene prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 7 x 5 cm defects were created in the anterior abdominal wall of New Zealand White rabbits and repaired by securing different prostheses to the edges of the defect with a running 4/0 polypropylene suture. The lightweight biomaterials compared were two nonabsorbable meshes: Parietene and Optilene elastic, and two partially absorbable prostheses: Vypro II and Ultrapro. At 14 and 90 days postimplant, tissue/prosthesis specimens were subjected to histological, immunohistochemical, shrinkage, and biomechanical analyses. RESULTS: Adhesion formation on the peritoneum-facing surface of the meshes was significantly less extensive in the meshes with absorbable components at 90 days postimplant. The newly formed tissue around the prosthetic filaments was comprised of collagen fibers, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and macrophages. The partially absorbable meshes showed higher macrophage proportions (due to remnants of absorbable material and their structure) than the nonabsorbable meshes at 90 days, although differences were not significant. At 90 days postimplant, similar tensile strengths were recorded for all the implants. CONCLUSIONS: All the prosthetic materials induced good host tissue ingrowth, with no significant differences in tensile strength observed. Our findings suggest that partially absorbable lightweight prostheses could offer advantages over nonabsorbable lightweight meshes since less foreign material persists in the recipient, improving abdominal wall compliance.
Authors: L Melman; E D Jenkins; N A Hamilton; L C Bender; M D Brodt; C R Deeken; S C Greco; M M Frisella; B D Matthews Journal: Hernia Date: 2011-01-30 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Jaime A Cavallo; Andres A Roma; Mateusz S Jasielec; Jenny Ousley; Jennifer Creamer; Matthew D Pichert; Sara Baalman; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews; Corey R Deeken Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: H Anjum; S G Bokhari; M A Khan; M Awais; Z U Mughal; H K Shahzad; F Ijaz; M I Siddiqui; I U Khan; A S Chaudhry; R Akhtar; S Aslam; H Akbar; M Asif; M K Maan; M A Khan; A Noor; W A Khan; A Ullah; M A Hayat Journal: Iran J Vet Res Date: 2016 Impact factor: 1.376
Authors: A Rickert; P Kienle; A Kuthe; P Baumann; R Engemann; J Kuhlgatz; M von Frankenberg; H P Knaebel; M W Büchler Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Carlos Alberto Lima Utrabo; Nicolau Gregori Czeczko; Cesar Roberto Busato; Mário Rodrigues Montemór-Netto; Leandro Lipinski; Osvaldo Malafaia Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2021-06-11