BACKGROUND: Hernia repair failure may occur due to suboptimal mesh fixation by mechanical constructs before mesh integration. Construct design and acute penetration angle may alter mesh-tissue fixation strength. We compared acute fixation strengths of absorbable fixation devices at various deployment angles, directions of loading, and construct orientations. METHODS: Porcine abdominal walls were sectioned. Constructs were deployed at 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° angles to fix mesh to the tissue specimens. Lap-shear testing was performed in upward, downward, and lateral directions in relation to the abdominal wall cranial-caudal axis to evaluate fixation. Absorbatack™ (AT), SorbaFix™ (SF), and SecureStrap™ in vertical (SSV) and horizontal (SSH) orientations in relation to the abdominal wall cranial-caudal axis were tested. Ten tests were performed for each combination of device, angle, and loading direction. Failure types and strength data were recorded. ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustments for multiple comparisons and χ (2) tests were performed as appropriate (p < 0.05 considered significant). RESULTS: At 30°, SSH and SSV had greater fixation strengths (12.95, 12.98 N, respectively) than SF (5.70 N; p = 0.0057, p = 0.0053, respectively). At 45°, mean fixation strength of SSH was significantly greater than SF (18.14, 11.40 N; p = 0.0002). No differences in strength were identified at 60° or 90°. No differences in strength were noted between SSV and SSH with different directions of loading. No differences were noted between SS and AT at any angle. Immediate failure was associated with SF (p < 0.0001) and the 30° tacking angle (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Mesh-tissue fixation was stronger at acute deployment angles with SS compared to SF constructs. The 30° angle and the SF device were associated with increased immediate failures. Varying construct and loading direction did not generate statistically significant differences in the fixation strength of absorbable fixation devices in this study.
BACKGROUND:Hernia repair failure may occur due to suboptimal mesh fixation by mechanical constructs before mesh integration. Construct design and acute penetration angle may alter mesh-tissue fixation strength. We compared acute fixation strengths of absorbable fixation devices at various deployment angles, directions of loading, and construct orientations. METHODS: Porcine abdominal walls were sectioned. Constructs were deployed at 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° angles to fix mesh to the tissue specimens. Lap-shear testing was performed in upward, downward, and lateral directions in relation to the abdominal wall cranial-caudal axis to evaluate fixation. Absorbatack™ (AT), SorbaFix™ (SF), and SecureStrap™ in vertical (SSV) and horizontal (SSH) orientations in relation to the abdominal wall cranial-caudal axis were tested. Ten tests were performed for each combination of device, angle, and loading direction. Failure types and strength data were recorded. ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustments for multiple comparisons and χ (2) tests were performed as appropriate (p < 0.05 considered significant). RESULTS: At 30°, SSH and SSV had greater fixation strengths (12.95, 12.98 N, respectively) than SF (5.70 N; p = 0.0057, p = 0.0053, respectively). At 45°, mean fixation strength of SSH was significantly greater than SF (18.14, 11.40 N; p = 0.0002). No differences in strength were identified at 60° or 90°. No differences in strength were noted between SSV and SSH with different directions of loading. No differences were noted between SS and AT at any angle. Immediate failure was associated with SF (p < 0.0001) and the 30° tacking angle (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Mesh-tissue fixation was stronger at acute deployment angles with SS compared to SF constructs. The 30° angle and the SF device were associated with increased immediate failures. Varying construct and loading direction did not generate statistically significant differences in the fixation strength of absorbable fixation devices in this study.
Authors: Lora Melman; Eric D Jenkins; Corey R Deeken; Michael D Brodt; Shaun R Brown; L Michael Brunt; J Christopher Eagon; Margaret Frisella; Brent D Matthews Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2010-09-03 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: Francisco Asencio; Javier Aguiló; Salvador Peiró; Juan Carbó; Ramón Ferri; Federico Caro; Marwan Ahmad Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J F Byrd; N Agee; R Z Swan; K N Lau; J J Heath; I H Mckillop; D Sindram; J B Martinie; D A Iannitti Journal: Hernia Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: William S Cobb; Justin M Burns; Kent W Kercher; Brent D Matthews; H James Norton; B Todd Heniford Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2005-09-02 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Alfredo M Carbonell; Kristi L Harold; Aida J Mahmutovic; Reem Hassan; Brent D Matthews; Kent W Kercher; Ronald F Sing; B Todd Heniford Journal: Am Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Christian Hollinsky; Thomas Kolbe; Ingrid Walter; Anja Joachim; Simone Sandberg; Thomas Koch; Thomas Rülicke; Albert Tuchmann Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 4.584