INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to analyze the apparent contraction of meshes in vivo after abdominal wall reconstruction and evaluate histological and biomechanical properties after explantation. METHODS: Nine New Zealand female rabbits underwent repair of two full-thickness 25 × 30-mm midline defects in the upper and lower parts of the abdomen. These were primarily overlaid by 35 × 40-mm implants of a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) DynaMesh (n = 6) or polypropylene meshes Ultrapro (n = 6) and Marlex (n = 6). Edges of the meshes were secured with iron(II,III) oxide (Fe(3)O(4))-loaded PVDF sutures. Magnetic resonance images (MRIs) were taken at days 2, 30 and 90 after implantation. The perimeter of the mesh was traced using a 3D spline curve. The apparent surface area or the area within the PVDF sutures was compared with the initial size using the one-sample t test. A two-way repeat analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the apparent surface area over time and between groups. RESULTS: PVDF meshes and sutures with Fe(3)O(4) could be well visualized on MRI. DynaMesh and Marlex each had a 17 % decrease in apparent surface area by day 2 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001), respectively, which persisted after day 90. Whereas there was a decrease in apparent surface area in Ultrapro, it did not reach significance until day 90 (p = 0.01). Overall, the apparent surface area decreased 21 % in all meshes by day 90. No differences in histological or biomechanical properties were observed at day 90. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in the apparent surface area between implantation and day 2, indicating that most mesh deformation occurs prior to tissue in-growth.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to analyze the apparent contraction of meshes in vivo after abdominal wall reconstruction and evaluate histological and biomechanical properties after explantation. METHODS: Nine New Zealand female rabbits underwent repair of two full-thickness 25 × 30-mm midline defects in the upper and lower parts of the abdomen. These were primarily overlaid by 35 × 40-mm implants of a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) DynaMesh (n = 6) or polypropylene meshes Ultrapro (n = 6) and Marlex (n = 6). Edges of the meshes were secured with iron(II,III) oxide (Fe(3)O(4))-loaded PVDF sutures. Magnetic resonance images (MRIs) were taken at days 2, 30 and 90 after implantation. The perimeter of the mesh was traced using a 3D spline curve. The apparent surface area or the area within the PVDF sutures was compared with the initial size using the one-sample t test. A two-way repeat analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the apparent surface area over time and between groups. RESULTS:PVDF meshes and sutures with Fe(3)O(4) could be well visualized on MRI. DynaMesh and Marlex each had a 17 % decrease in apparent surface area by day 2 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001), respectively, which persisted after day 90. Whereas there was a decrease in apparent surface area in Ultrapro, it did not reach significance until day 90 (p = 0.01). Overall, the apparent surface area decreased 21 % in all meshes by day 90. No differences in histological or biomechanical properties were observed at day 90. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in the apparent surface area between implantation and day 2, indicating that most mesh deformation occurs prior to tissue in-growth.
Authors: Nils A Krämer; Hank C W Donker; Jens Otto; Michael Hodenius; Julien Sénégas; Ioana Slabu; Uwe Klinge; Martin Baumann; Andreas Müllen; Boris Obolenski; Rolf W Günther; Gabriele A Krombach Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Michel Cosson; G Willy Davila; Jan Deprest; Peter L Dwyer; Brigitte Fatton; Ervin Kocjancic; Joseph Lee; Chris Maher; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer; Ralph Webb Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Wesley S Hilger; Andrew Walter; Mark E Zobitz; Kevin O Leslie; Paul Magtibay; Jeffrey Cornella Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Maja L Konstantinovic; Pieter Lagae; Fang Zheng; Eric K Verbeken; Dirk De Ridder; Jan A Deprest Journal: BJOG Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Lisa M Pierce; Melissa A Grunlan; Yaping Hou; Shannon S Baumann; Thomas J Kuehl; Tristi W Muir Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Filip Claerhout; Godelieve Verbist; Eric Verbeken; Maja Konstantinovic; Dirk De Ridder; Jan Deprest Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Nicolas Kuehnert; Nils A Kraemer; Jens Otto; Hank C W Donker; Ioana Slabu; Martin Baumann; Christiane K Kuhl; Uwe Klinge Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nikhil Sindhwani; Andrew Feola; Frederik De Keyzer; Filip Claus; Geertje Callewaert; Iva Urbankova; Sebastien Ourselin; Jan D'hooge; Jan Deprest Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Katrina M Knight; Amanda M Artsen; Megan R Routzong; Gabrielle E King; Steven D Abramowitch; Pamela A Moalli Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: A Sauerwald; M Niggl; J Puppe; A Prescher; M Scaal; G K Noé; S Schiermeier; M Warm; C Eichler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jordi Sabadell; Anna Pereda-Núñez; Fernando Ojeda-de-Los-Santos; Manuel Urbaneja; Carmen González-García; Narcís Camps-Lloveras; Àngela Pérez-Plantado; Judit Canet-Rodríguez; Maria Paz Pérez-Espejo; Nuria Rodríguez-Mias; Núria Sarasa-Castelló; Marta Palau; Anabel Montero-Armengol; Sabina Salicrú; Antonio Gil-Moreno; Jose L Poza Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 2.367