Literature DB >> 22578730

Post-implantation alterations of polypropylene in the human.

Gina Sternschuss1, Donald R Ostergard, Hiren Patel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We reviewed the mechanisms by which polypropylene mesh changes after implantation in the human body.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The existing polymer and medical literature was reviewed regarding polypropylene, including its chemical characteristics, and compositional and physical properties, which undergo alteration after implantation at various human body locations. We also reviewed the changes in those physical properties that were demonstrable in explanted specimens.
RESULTS: Polypropylene in mesh form is commonly considered inert and without adverse reactions after implantation in humans. The literature suggests otherwise with reports of various degrees of degradation, including depolymerization, cross-linking, oxidative degradation by free radicals, additive leaching, hydrolysis, stress cracking and mesh shrinkage along with infection, chronic inflammation and the stimulation of sclerosis. Many substances added to polypropylene for various purposes during manufacture behave as toxic substances that are released during the degradation process. The material may also absorb various substances. These alterations in the chemical structure of polypropylene are responsible for visibly demonstrable fiber changes, resulting in the loss of structural integrity through material embrittlement. The heat of manufacturing polypropylene fibers begins the degradation process, which is augmented by the post-production heat used to flatten the mesh to prevent curling and attach anchoring appendages.
CONCLUSION: Based on available evidence the polypropylene used for surgical treatment of various structural defects is not inert after implantation in the human body. The quest for the perfect mesh must continue.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22578730     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2559

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  14 in total

1.  Evaluation of surgical instrument handling on polypropylene mesh using scanning electron microscopy.

Authors:  Ali Azadi; Jacek B Jasinski; Sean L Francis; Resad Pasic; Lioudmila Lipetskaia; Nicolette E Deveneau; Taraneh Yeganeh; Donald R Ostergard
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Mesh Excision: Is Total Mesh Excision Necessary?

Authors:  Gillian F Wolff; J Christian Winters; Ryan M Krlin
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Surgical mesh for ventral incisional hernia repairs: Understanding mesh design.

Authors:  Ali Rastegarpour; Michael Cheung; Madhurima Vardhan; Mohamed M Ibrahim; Charles E Butler; Howard Levinson
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 0.947

4.  To mesh or not to mesh with polypropylene: does carcinogenesis in animals matter?

Authors:  Donald R Ostergard; Ali Azadi
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Surgical perspectives regarding application of biomaterials for the management of large congenital diaphragmatic hernia defects.

Authors:  Amulya K Saxena
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Management of complications arising from the use of mesh for stress urinary incontinence-International Urogynecology Association Research and Development Committee opinion.

Authors:  Jonathan Duckett; Barbara Bodner-Adler; Suneetha Rachaneni; Pallavi Latthe
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 7.  Safety considerations for synthetic sling surgery.

Authors:  Jerry G Blaivas; Rajveer S Purohit; Matthew S Benedon; Gabriel Mekel; Michael Stern; Mubashir Billah; Kola Olugbade; Robert Bendavid; Vladimir Iakovlev
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Effectiveness of mesh compared with nonmesh sling surgery in Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Anne M Suskind; J Quentin Clemens; Rodney L Dunn; Yun Zhang; John T Stoffel; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Tissue reaction to urogynecologic meshes: effect of steroid soaking in two different mesh models.

Authors:  Aysun Karabulut; Serap Aynur Simavlı; Gülçin Mete Abban; Şahika Pınar Akyer; Nazan Keskin; Semih Tan; Barbaros Şahin
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-04-02       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 10.  New strategies to improve results of mesh surgeries for vaginal prolapses repair--an update.

Authors:  Fernando Goulart Fernandes Dias; Paulo Henrique Goulart Fernandes Dias; Alessandro Prudente; Cassio Riccetto
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.