Corey R Deeken1, Keith M Faucher, Brent D Matthews. 1. Department of Surgery, Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. deekenc@wudosis.wustl.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the components that comprise each of the eight barrier mesh prostheses commonly utilized for LVHR and to review the current literature related to the characteristics and effectiveness of these materials to guide the general surgeon in selecting the most appropriate material for LVHR. METHODS: Composite prostheses with permanent barriers (Bard™ Composix™ E/X, Bard™ Composix™ L/P, and DUALMESH(®) Biomaterial) were compared to composite prostheses with absorbable barriers (C-QUR™ Mesh, PROCEED™ Surgical Mesh, Bard™ Sepramesh™ IP Composite, Parietex™ Composite, and PHYSIOMESH™) using scanning electron microscopy and a review of the current preclinical and clinical literature. RESULTS: Clinical studies and preclinical animal models have attempted to determine the adhesion characteristics and effectiveness of barrier mesh prostheses available for ventral hernia repair applications. However, it is difficult to make any definitive statements about the adhesion characteristics and effectiveness of these materials because all meshes were not included in all studies and likewise not compared under identical conditions. Overall, Parietex™ Composite and DUALMESH(®) Biomaterial were cited most frequently for improvement of adhesion characteristics, followed closely by Bard™ Sepramesh™ IP Composite and C-QUR™ Mesh. Bard™ Composix™, PROCEED™ Surgical Mesh, and uncoated polypropylene were cited most frequently as having the most tenacious and extensive adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: Differences observed between the various barrier prostheses are likely attributable to the chemical composition of the barrier or the conditions required for resorption and metabolism of the barrier components. It is likely that the components of these barriers incite a wide range of inflammatory responses resulting in the range of adhesion coverage and tenacity observed in the preclinical and clinical studies reviewed. Clinical trials are needed to more appropriately define the clinical effectiveness of these barriers.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the components that comprise each of the eight barrier mesh prostheses commonly utilized for LVHR and to review the current literature related to the characteristics and effectiveness of these materials to guide the general surgeon in selecting the most appropriate material for LVHR. METHODS: Composite prostheses with permanent barriers (Bard™ Composix™ E/X, Bard™ Composix™ L/P, and DUALMESH(®) Biomaterial) were compared to composite prostheses with absorbable barriers (C-QUR™ Mesh, PROCEED™ Surgical Mesh, Bard™ Sepramesh™ IP Composite, Parietex™ Composite, and PHYSIOMESH™) using scanning electron microscopy and a review of the current preclinical and clinical literature. RESULTS: Clinical studies and preclinical animal models have attempted to determine the adhesion characteristics and effectiveness of barrier mesh prostheses available for ventral hernia repair applications. However, it is difficult to make any definitive statements about the adhesion characteristics and effectiveness of these materials because all meshes were not included in all studies and likewise not compared under identical conditions. Overall, Parietex™ Composite and DUALMESH(®) Biomaterial were cited most frequently for improvement of adhesion characteristics, followed closely by Bard™ Sepramesh™ IP Composite and C-QUR™ Mesh. Bard™ Composix™, PROCEED™ Surgical Mesh, and uncoated polypropylene were cited most frequently as having the most tenacious and extensive adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: Differences observed between the various barrier prostheses are likely attributable to the chemical composition of the barrier or the conditions required for resorption and metabolism of the barrier components. It is likely that the components of these barriers incite a wide range of inflammatory responses resulting in the range of adhesion coverage and tenacity observed in the preclinical and clinical studies reviewed. Clinical trials are needed to more appropriately define the clinical effectiveness of these barriers.
Authors: Eric D Jenkins; Victoria Yom; Lora Melman; L Michael Brunt; J Christopher Eagon; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Machteld J van Amerongen; Martin C Harmsen; Arjen H Petersen; Geert Kors; Marja J A van Luyn Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-11-28 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Jacobus W A Burger; Roland W Luijendijk; Wim C J Hop; Jens A Halm; Emiel G G Verdaasdonk; Johannes Jeekel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Natalie Artzi; Abraham R Tzafriri; Keith M Faucher; Geoffrey Moodie; Theresa Albergo; Suzanne Conroy; Scott Corbeil; Paul Martakos; Renu Virmani; Elazer R Edelman Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Demetrios Moris; Jeffery Chakedis; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Ana Wilson; Mairead Marion Hennessy; Antonios Athanasiou; Eliza W Beal; Chrysoula Argyrou; Evangelos Felekouras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kevin W Y van Barneveld; Ruben R M Vogels; Geerard L Beets; Stephanie O Breukink; Jan-Willem M Greve; Nicole D Bouvy; Marc H F Schreinemacher Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Andreas Domen; Cedric Stabel; Rami Jawad; Nicolas Duchateau; Erik Fransen; Patrick Vanclooster; Charles de Gheldere Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Marc H F Schreinemacher; Kevin W Y van Barneveld; Rieky E G Dikmans; Marion J J Gijbels; Jan-Willem M Greve; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-06-08 Impact factor: 4.584