Literature DB >> 23240803

Graft-related complications and biaxial tensiometry following experimental vaginal implantation of flat mesh of variable dimensions.

S Manodoro1,2, M Endo1,3, P Uvin3, M Albersen3, J Vláčil1,3, A Engels1, B Schmidt4, D De Ridder3,5, A Feola1,3, J Deprest1,3,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of graft-related complications (GRCs) and biomechanical properties of meshes implanted vaginally and abdominally.
DESIGN: In vivo animal experiment.
SETTING: Centre for Surgical Technologies, Medical Faculty, KU Leuven, Belgium. POPULATION: Twenty adult parous Texel ewes.
METHODS: Sheep were implanted with Gynemesh M, a 28-g/m² polypropylene mesh reinforced with polyglecaprone fibres, under general anaesthesia. Dissection into the rectovaginal septum was performed to accommodate a flat 50 × 50 mm (n = 10) or 35 × 35 mm (n = 10) mesh, which was sutured to the underlying tissues. A 50 × 50 mm mesh was laid over a primarily sutured, full-thickness, 40-mm longitudinal abdominal wall incision. Sacrifice was at 60 days (n = 10) or 90 days (n = 5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The occurrence of exposure, the degree of contraction and examination of the biomechanical properties of explants with a minimum radius of 32 mm via biaxial tensiometry.
RESULTS: Insertion of a 50 × 50 mm mesh led to exposures in 30% (3/10) of cases, and the average contraction rate was 52 ± 14%. In the 35 × 35 mm implants, there were no exposures, and the contraction rate was 25 ± 26.3%. Vaginal explants with no GRCs and of sufficient size had biomechanical properties that were comparable with those of abdominal explants.
CONCLUSION: Vaginal mesh insertion is associated with GRCs, such as exposure and contraction. Although other factors probably play a role, this study illustrates that mesh size may also induce these complications. In a vaginal surgery model, clinically occurring GRCs can be reproduced. In addition, biomechanics of uncomplicated vaginal explants are comparable with those measured on abdominal explants.
© 2013 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2013 RCOG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23240803     DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  19 in total

1.  Mobility and stress analysis of different surgical simulations during a sacral colpopexy, using a finite element model of the pelvic system.

Authors:  Estelle Jeanditgautier; Olivier Mayeur; Mathias Brieu; Gery Lamblin; Chrystele Rubod; Michel Cosson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Comparing different tissue-engineered repair materials for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence: which material is better?

Authors:  Xiaojuan Wang; Yisong Chen; Zhongyong Fan; Keqin Hua
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Transvaginal Mesh Insertion in the Ovine Model.

Authors:  Iva Urbankova; Geertje Callewaert; Nikhil Sindhwani; Alice Turri; Lucie Hympanova; Andrew Feola; Jan Deprest
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Mesh contraction: in vivo documentation of changes in apparent surface area utilizing meshes visible on magnetic resonance imaging in the rabbit abdominal wall model.

Authors:  Masayuki Endo; Andrew Feola; Nikhil Sindhwani; Stefano Manodoro; Jarek Vlacil; Alexander Carl Engels; Filip Claus; Jan A Deprest
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Mesh retraction correlates with vaginal pain and overactive bladder symptoms after anterior vaginal mesh repair.

Authors:  A Rogowski; P Bienkowski; A Tosiak; M Jerzak; P Mierzejewski; W Baranowski
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-06-08       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Repairing the female pelvic floor: when good enough is not good enough.

Authors:  Sheila MacNeil; Sohier El Neil; Gloria Esegbona; Margot Damaser
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  Stem cell augmented mesh materials: an in vitro and in vivo study.

Authors:  Federico Spelzini; Stefano Manodoro; Matteo Frigerio; Gabriella Nicolini; Daniele Maggioni; Elisabetta Donzelli; Lina Altomare; Silvia Farè; Fanny Veneziano; Federica Avezza; Giovanni Tredici; Rodolfo Milani
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 8.  Host-biomaterial interactions in mesh complications after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Roxanna E Abhari; Matthew L Izett-Kay; Hayley L Morris; Rufus Cartwright; Sarah J B Snelling
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Mesh deformation: A mechanism underlying polypropylene prolapse mesh complications in vivo.

Authors:  Katrina M Knight; Gabrielle E King; Stacy L Palcsey; Amanda Suda; Rui Liang; Pamela A Moalli
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 10.633

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.