INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Although polypropylene (PP) is the most common biomaterial used to repair genital prolapse via vaginal route, its mechanical properties however remain obscure. METHODS: An abdominal hernia rabbit model was used to evaluate retraction, solidity, and elasticity of the principal types of PP prostheses currently available, i.e., three large pore size monofilament prostheses, one heavy weight (HWPP), a second low weight (LWPP), and a third coated with atelocollagen (CPP). A small pore size multifilament PP (MPP) implant was also tested. RESULTS: In comparison with HWPP (12%), LWPP (15%), and MPP (30%), CPP had less retraction (8% of the original size). Unlike pore size, weight prosthesis is not an influencing factor for retraction. Atelocollagen coating reduced retraction. HWPP and MPP were the most solid prostheses. MPP supported the greatest elastic force. CONCLUSIONS: When the biomechanical parameters were comparatively assessed, HWPP was considered to have the most advantageous properties for prolapse surgery.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Although polypropylene (PP) is the most common biomaterial used to repair genital prolapse via vaginal route, its mechanical properties however remain obscure. METHODS: An abdominal herniarabbit model was used to evaluate retraction, solidity, and elasticity of the principal types of PP prostheses currently available, i.e., three large pore size monofilament prostheses, one heavy weight (HWPP), a second low weight (LWPP), and a third coated with atelocollagen (CPP). A small pore size multifilament PP (MPP) implant was also tested. RESULTS: In comparison with HWPP (12%), LWPP (15%), and MPP (30%), CPP had less retraction (8% of the original size). Unlike pore size, weight prosthesis is not an influencing factor for retraction. Atelocollagen coating reduced retraction. HWPP and MPP were the most solid prostheses. MPP supported the greatest elastic force. CONCLUSIONS: When the biomechanical parameters were comparatively assessed, HWPP was considered to have the most advantageous properties for prolapse surgery.
Authors: William S Cobb; Justin M Burns; Kent W Kercher; Brent D Matthews; H James Norton; B Todd Heniford Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2005-09-02 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: P Debodinance; J Berrocal; H Clavé; M Cosson; O Garbin; B Jacquetin; C Rosenthal; D Salet-Lizée; R Villet Journal: J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) Date: 2004-11
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Laurent Mamy; Vincent Letouzey; Jean-Philippe Lavigne; Xavier Garric; Jean Gondry; Pierre Mares; Renaud de Tayrac Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Yves Ozog; Maja L Konstantinovic; Erika Werbrouck; Dirk De Ridder; Mazza Edoardo; Jan Deprest Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 2.894