OBJECTIVE: To compare intraperitoneal adhesion formation with placement of polypropylene mesh and use of lightweight polypropylene mesh coated with omega-3 fatty in rats. METHODS: Twenty-seven Wistar rats were randomized into three groups. In group 0 no mesh was placed; in group 1 we implanted a polypropylene mesh; and in group 2 there was implantation of a polypropylene mesh coated with omega-3 fatty acid. We evaluated adhesions presence and degree, breaking strength, percentage of area covered and retraction of the implanted meshes. RESULTS: Group 0 had no adhesion. Groups 1 and 2 showed adhesions on the surface of the mesh, omentum, liver and intestinal loops. There were grades 1 and 2 adhesions in 100% of the polypropylene coated group and in 60% of the polypropylene group. The remaining were grade 3 adhesions, and differed significantly between groups (p <0.001). The breaking strength of adhesions on the polypropylene coated group was significantly higher than with the polypropylene alone (p = 0.016). There was no difference in mesh retraction or area covered by the mesh. The analysis of the mesh coated with omega-3 fatty acid distribution showed adhesions preferentially located at the edges when compared to polypropylene, predominantly in the center. CONCLUSION: The type of adhesions, percentage of surface affected and retraction were not significantly different between meshes. The fatty acids coated mesh had a lower degree of adhesions and these required a greater force to rupture, possibly by their occurrence at the edges of the mesh.
OBJECTIVE: To compare intraperitoneal adhesion formation with placement of polypropylene mesh and use of lightweight polypropylene mesh coated with omega-3 fatty in rats. METHODS: Twenty-seven Wistar rats were randomized into three groups. In group 0 no mesh was placed; in group 1 we implanted a polypropylene mesh; and in group 2 there was implantation of a polypropylene mesh coated with omega-3 fatty acid. We evaluated adhesions presence and degree, breaking strength, percentage of area covered and retraction of the implanted meshes. RESULTS: Group 0 had no adhesion. Groups 1 and 2 showed adhesions on the surface of the mesh, omentum, liver and intestinal loops. There were grades 1 and 2 adhesions in 100% of the polypropylene coated group and in 60% of the polypropylene group. The remaining were grade 3 adhesions, and differed significantly between groups (p <0.001). The breaking strength of adhesions on the polypropylene coated group was significantly higher than with the polypropylene alone (p = 0.016). There was no difference in mesh retraction or area covered by the mesh. The analysis of the mesh coated with omega-3 fatty acid distribution showed adhesions preferentially located at the edges when compared to polypropylene, predominantly in the center. CONCLUSION: The type of adhesions, percentage of surface affected and retraction were not significantly different between meshes. The fatty acids coated mesh had a lower degree of adhesions and these required a greater force to rupture, possibly by their occurrence at the edges of the mesh.