Literature DB >> 21298542

Bacterial clearance of biologic grafts used in hernia repair: an experimental study.

K C Harth1, A-M Broome, M R Jacobs, J A Blatnik, F Zeinali, S Bajaksouzian, M J Rosen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biologic grafts used in ventral hernia repair are derived from various sources and undergo different post-tissue-harvesting processing, handling, and sterilization techniques. It is unclear how these various characteristics impact graft response in the setting of contamination. We evaluated four materials in an infected hernia repair animal model using fluorescence imaging and quantitative culture studies.
METHODS: One hundred seven rats underwent creation of a chronic hernia. They were then repaired with one synthetic polyester control material (n = 12) and four different biologic grafts (n = 24 per material). Biologic grafts evaluated included Surgisis (porcine small intestinal submucosa), Permacol (crosslinked porcine dermis), Xenmatrix (noncrosslinked porcine dermis), and Strattice (noncrosslinked porcine dermis). Half of the repairs in each group were inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus at 10(4) CFU/ml and survived for 30 days without systemic antibiotics. Animals then underwent fluorescence imaging and quantitative bacterial studies.
RESULTS: All clean repairs remained sterile. Rates of bacterial clearance were as follows: polyester synthetic 0%, Surgisis 58%, Permacol 67%, Xenmatrix 75%, and Strattice 92% (P=0.003). Quantitative bacterial counts had a similar trend in bacterial clearance: polyester synthetic 1×10(6) CFU/g, Surgisis 4.3×10(5) CFU/g, Permacol 1.7×10(3) CFU/g, Xenmatrix 46 CFU/g, and Strattice 31 CFU/g (P=0.001). Fluorescence imaging was unable to detect low bacterial fluorescence counts observed on bacterial studies.
CONCLUSION: Biologic grafts, in comparison to synthetic material, are able to clear a Staphylococcus aureus contamination; however, they are able to do so at different rates. Bacterial clearance correlated to the level of residual bacterial burden observed in our study. Post-tissue-harvesting processing, handling, and sterilization techniques may contribute to this observed difference in ability to clear bacteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21298542      PMCID: PMC3148780          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1534-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  27 in total

1.  The effect of bacteria on the take of split-thickness skin grafts in rabbits.

Authors:  N C F LIEDBERG; E REISS; C P ARTZ
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1955-07       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material.

Authors:  Stephen F Badylak
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2007-05-08       Impact factor: 12.479

3.  Human leukocytes adhere to, penetrate, and respond to Staphylococcus aureus biofilms.

Authors:  Jeff G Leid; Mark E Shirtliff; J W Costerton; Paul Stoodley
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.441

4.  Assessing the long-term retention and permanency of acellular cross-linked porcine dermal collagen as a soft-tissue substitute.

Authors:  Pat Kelley; Kyle Gordley; Stephen Higuera; John Hicks; Larry H Hollier
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Histological evaluation of Permacol as a subcutaneous implant over a 20-week period in the rat model.

Authors:  T M Macleod; G Williams; R Sanders; C J Green
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  2005-06

6.  Comparison of host response to polypropylene and non-cross-linked porcine small intestine serosal-derived collagen implants in a rat model.

Authors:  Maja L Konstantinovic; Pieter Lagae; Fang Zheng; Eric K Verbeken; Dirk De Ridder; Jan A Deprest
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  Morphologic study of three collagen materials for body wall repair.

Authors:  Emily E Soiderer; Gary C Lantz; Evelyn A Kazacos; Jason P Hodde; Ryan E Wiegand
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2004-05-15       Impact factor: 2.192

8.  Porcine collagen crosslinking, degradation and its capability for fibroblast adhesion and proliferation.

Authors:  Marcus L Jarman-Smith; Tulin Bodamyali; Cliff Stevens; John A Howell; Michael Horrocks; Julian B Chaudhuri
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.896

9.  Abdominal wall hernia repair: a comparison of Permacol and Surgisis grafts in a rat hernia model.

Authors:  F S Ayubi; P J Armstrong; M S Mattia; D M Parker
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2008-03-11       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  Acellular dermal matrix compared with synthetic implant material for repair of ventral hernia in the setting of peri-operative Staphylococcus aureus implant contamination: a rabbit model.

Authors:  Meghan L Milburn; Luther H Holton; Thomas L Chung; Edward N Li; Grant V Bochicchio; Nelson H Goldberg; Ronald P Silverman
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.150

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Practical Approaches to Definitive Reconstruction of Complex Abdominal Wall Defects.

Authors:  Rifat Latifi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Infected animal models for tissue engineering.

Authors:  Alexander M Tatara; Sarita R Shah; Carissa E Livingston; Antonios G Mikos
Journal:  Methods       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 3.608

Review 3.  A critical review of the in vitro and in vivo models for the evaluation of anti-infective meshes.

Authors:  O Guillaume; B Pérez Kohler; R Fortelny; H Redl; F Moriarty; R G Richards; D Eglin; A Petter Puchner
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 4.739

4.   Extracellular Matrix-Based Biomaterials and Their Influence Upon Cell Behavior.

Authors:  Madeline C Cramer; Stephen F Badylak
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 3.934

5.  Improved outcomes in the management of high-risk incisional hernias utilizing biological mesh and soft-tissue reconstruction: a single center experience.

Authors:  J R A Skipworth; S Vyas; L Uppal; D Floyd; A Shankar
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?

Authors:  B Pérez-Köhler; S Sotomayor; M Rodríguez; M I Gegúndez; G Pascual; J M Bellón
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Evaluation of surgical outcomes of retro-rectus versus intraperitoneal reinforcement with bio-prosthetic mesh in the repair of contaminated ventral hernias.

Authors:  M J Rosen; G Denoto; K M F Itani; C Butler; D Vargo; J Smiell; R Rutan
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  Remodeling characteristics and biomechanical properties of a crosslinked versus a non-crosslinked porcine dermis scaffolds in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  J A Cavallo; S C Greco; J Liu; M M Frisella; C R Deeken; B D Matthews
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 9.  Options for closure of the infected abdomen.

Authors:  Kristin C Turza; Chris A Campbell; Laura H Rosenberger; Amani D Politano; Stephen W Davies; Lin M Riccio; Robert G Sawyer
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-12-10       Impact factor: 2.150

10.  Remodeling characteristics and collagen distribution in biological scaffold materials explanted from human subjects after abdominal soft tissue reconstruction: an analysis of scaffold remodeling characteristics by patient risk factors and surgical site classifications.

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:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.