PURPOSE: To compare two different incisional hernia repair techniques (repair with a polypropylene mesh reinforcement on the peritonium-aponeurosis versus polypropylene mesh sutured to the borders of the hernial ring as a bridge) in rabbits. METHODS: Incisional hernia was experimentally developed through a 4-cm median incision in 60 rabbits. After 30 days, half of the animals were operated for primary wall closure and placement of a polypropylene mesh reinforcement, while the other half had a polypropylene mesh sutured to the borders of the hernial ring as a bridge. Clinical development, scar breaking strength, as well as gross, microscopic and morphometric parameters were evaluated in all animals 30, 60, and 90 days after repair. RESULTS: No significant differences in breaking strength or histological parameters were observed between groups at any time point studied. No statistical difference regarding complications was detected, although denser and firmer adhesions to the abdominal wall were seen after the mesh was placed as a " bridge" . CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between the incisional hernia repair techniques assessed were observed regarding breaking strength, and histological and morphometric parameters. The number of complications was similar in both study groups. However, adhesion of abdominal cavity organs to the scar area was much denser after the placement of a mesh to bridge the defect.
PURPOSE: To compare two different incisional hernia repair techniques (repair with a polypropylene mesh reinforcement on the peritonium-aponeurosis versus polypropylene mesh sutured to the borders of the hernial ring as a bridge) in rabbits. METHODS: Incisional hernia was experimentally developed through a 4-cm median incision in 60 rabbits. After 30 days, half of the animals were operated for primary wall closure and placement of a polypropylene mesh reinforcement, while the other half had a polypropylene mesh sutured to the borders of the hernial ring as a bridge. Clinical development, scar breaking strength, as well as gross, microscopic and morphometric parameters were evaluated in all animals 30, 60, and 90 days after repair. RESULTS: No significant differences in breaking strength or histological parameters were observed between groups at any time point studied. No statistical difference regarding complications was detected, although denser and firmer adhesions to the abdominal wall were seen after the mesh was placed as a " bridge" . CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between the incisional hernia repair techniques assessed were observed regarding breaking strength, and histological and morphometric parameters. The number of complications was similar in both study groups. However, adhesion of abdominal cavity organs to the scar area was much denser after the placement of a mesh to bridge the defect.