Literature DB >> 23132422

Experimental study on synthetic and biological mesh implantation in a contaminated environment.

E B Deerenberg1, I M Mulder, N Grotenhuis, M Ditzel, J Jeekel, J F Lange.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implantation of meshes in a contaminated environment can be complicated by mesh infection and adhesion formation.
METHODS: The caecal ligation and puncture model was used to induce peritonitis in 144 rats. Seven commercially available meshes were implanted intraperitoneally: six non-absorbable meshes, of which three had an absorbable coating, and one biological mesh. Mesh infection, intra-abdominal abscess formation, adhesion formation, incorporation and shrinkage were evaluated after 28 and 90 days. Histological examination with haematoxylin and eosin and picrosirius red staining was performed.
RESULTS: No mesh infections occurred in Sepramesh(®) , Omyramesh(®) and Strattice(®) . One mesh infection occurred in Parietene(®) and Parietene Composite(®) . Significantly more mesh infections were found in C-Qur(®) (15 of 16; P ≤ 0·006) and Dualmesh(®) (7 of 15; P ≤ 0·035). Sepramesh(®) showed a significant increase in adhesion coverage from 12·5 per cent at 28 days to 60·0 per cent at 90 days (P = 0·010). At 90 days there was no significant difference between median adhesion coverage of Parietene Composite(®) (35·0 per cent), Omyramesh(®) (42·5 per cent), Sepramesh(®) (60·0 per cent) and Parietene(®) (72·5 per cent). After 90 days the adhesion coverage of Strattice(®) was 5·0 per cent, and incorporation (13·4 per cent) was significantly poorer than for other non-infected meshes (P ≤ 0·009). Dualmesh(®) showed shrinkage of 63 per cent after 90 days.
CONCLUSION: Parietene Composite(®) and Omyramesh(®) performed well in a contaminated environment. Strattice(®) had little adhesion formation and no mesh infection, but poor incorporation. Some synthetic meshes can be as resistant to infection as biological meshes.
Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23132422     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8954

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  12 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  The prevention of colorectal anastomotic leakage with tissue adhesives in a contaminated environment is associated with the presence of anti-inflammatory macrophages.

Authors:  Zhouqiao Wu; Konstantinos A Vakalopoulos; Geesien S A Boersema; Leonard F Kroese; King H Lam; Paul H van der Horst; Irene M Mulder; Yvonne M Bastiaansen-Jenniskens; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh placement to prevent incisional hernia after stoma reversal: a feasibility study.

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

5.  The impact of hydrophobic hernia mesh coating by omega fatty acid on atraumatic fibrin sealant fixation.

Authors:  S Gruber-Blum; J Brand; C Keibl; H Redl; R H Fortelny; C May; A H Petter-Puchner
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-09-07       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  Properties of novel composite meshes in chest wall reconstruction: A comparative animal study.

Authors:  Patrick Zardo; Ruoyu Zhang; Stefan Freermann; Stefan Fischer
Journal:  Ann Thorac Med       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.219

7.  A clinically relevant in vivo model for the assessment of scaffold efficacy in abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  Jeffrey Cy Chan; Krishna Burugapalli; Yi-Shiang Huang; John L Kelly; Abhay Pandit
Journal:  J Tissue Eng       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 7.813

8.  Effects of macroporous monofilament mesh on infection in a contaminated field.

Authors:  Kamil Bury; Maciej Smietański; Bigda Justyna; Piotr Gumiela; Anna Irmina Smietańska; Radosław Owczuk; Lukasz Naumiuk; Alfred Samet; J Paradziej-Łukowicz
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 3.445

9.  Experimental study of the characteristics of a novel mesh suture.

Authors:  G A Dumanian; A Tulaimat; Z P Dumanian
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Prophylactic, Synthetic Intraperitoneal Mesh Versus No Mesh Implantation in Patients with Fascial Dehiscence.

Authors:  Manuel O Jakob; Daniel Spari; Joel Zindel; Tawan Pinworasarn; Daniel Candinas; Guido Beldi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.