PURPOSE: To assess intraperitoneal adhesion formation in rats after the single implantation of intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh versus SIS mesh, and the effect of PAF as a polypropylene mesh barrier. METHODS: A total of 55 albino rats randomized into three groups were assessed. The type of adhesions, the percentage of mash covered with adhesions, and the rupture strength of the adhesions were evaluated. RESULTS: The type 2 and 3 adhesions were more frequent in group 1 (polypropylene mesh) and group 3 (Polypropylene+PAF), while type 0 and 1 adhesions were more frequent in group 2 (SIS). The mean rupture strength was 1,58 N (+/-0,719N) in group 1, 0,42 N (+/-0,432N) in group 2 and 1,23 N (+/-0,432N) in group 3. Over 50% of the mash was covered with adhesions in 12 (80%) cases of the group 1, in 4 (20%) cases of the group 2 and in 16 (84,2%) cases of the group 3. Group 2 differed significantly (p<0.001) from the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh yielded higher rates of adhesion and the use of PAF as a mesh barrier didn't reduced the rates of adhesion. SIS mesh implantation revealed lower rates of peritoneal adhesions.
PURPOSE: To assess intraperitoneal adhesion formation in rats after the single implantation of intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh versus SIS mesh, and the effect of PAF as a polypropylene mesh barrier. METHODS: A total of 55 albino rats randomized into three groups were assessed. The type of adhesions, the percentage of mash covered with adhesions, and the rupture strength of the adhesions were evaluated. RESULTS: The type 2 and 3 adhesions were more frequent in group 1 (polypropylene mesh) and group 3 (Polypropylene+PAF), while type 0 and 1 adhesions were more frequent in group 2 (SIS). The mean rupture strength was 1,58 N (+/-0,719N) in group 1, 0,42 N (+/-0,432N) in group 2 and 1,23 N (+/-0,432N) in group 3. Over 50% of the mash was covered with adhesions in 12 (80%) cases of the group 1, in 4 (20%) cases of the group 2 and in 16 (84,2%) cases of the group 3. Group 2 differed significantly (p<0.001) from the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh yielded higher rates of adhesion and the use of PAF as a mesh barrier didn't reduced the rates of adhesion. SIS mesh implantation revealed lower rates of peritoneal adhesions.
Authors: James G Bittner; Kevin El-Hayek; Andrew T Strong; Melissa Phillips LaPinska; Jin S Yoo; Eric M Pauli; Matthew Kroh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.584