Literature DB >> 25486631

Pore size and pore shape--but not mesh density--alter the mechanical strength of tissue ingrowth and host tissue response to synthetic mesh materials in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair.

Spencer P Lake1, Shuddhadeb Ray2, Ahmed M Zihni2, Dominic M Thompson2, Jeffrey Gluckstein2, Corey R Deeken3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over 100 types of soft tissue repair materials are commercially available for hernia repair applications. These materials vary in characteristics such as mesh density, pore size, and pore shape. It is difficult to determine the impact of a single variable of interest due to other compounding variables in a particular design. Thus, the current study utilized prototype meshes designed to evaluate each of these mesh parameters individually.
METHODS: Five prototype meshes composed of planar, monofilament polyethylene terephthalate (PET) were evaluated in this study. The meshes were designed to focus on three key parameters, namely mesh density, pore size, and pore shape. The prototype meshes were implanted in the preperitoneal, retrorectus space in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair, and tissue ingrowth characteristics were evaluated after 90 days. Mesh-tissue composite specimens were obtained from each repair site and evaluated via T-peel mechanical testing. Force-displacement data for each T-peel test were analyzed and five characteristics of tissue ingrowth reported: peak force (fp), critical force (fc), fracture energy (Γc), work (W), and work density (Wden). Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections of explanted mesh-tissue composites were also assessed for characteristics of tissue response including cellular infiltration, cell types, inflammatory response, extracellular matrix deposition, neovascularization, and fibrosis, with a composite score assigned to represent overall tissue response.
RESULTS: The medium-weight, very large pore, hexagonal (MWVLH) mesh performed significantly better than the light-weight, medium pore, diamond (LWMD) mesh for all parameters evaluated (fp, fc, Γc, W, Wden) and trended toward better results than the medium-weight, medium pore, diamond (MWMD) mesh for the majority of the parameters evaluated. When the data for the five meshes was grouped to evaluate mesh density, pore size, and pore shape, differences were more pronounced. No significant differences were observed with respect to mesh density, however significant improvement in mechanical strength of tissue ingrowth occurred as pore size increased from medium to very large. In addition, the hexagonal pores resulted in the strongest tissue ingrowth, followed by the square pores, and finally the diamond pores. Scores for several histological parameters were significantly different for these prototype meshes. For example, the MWVLH mesh showed significantly greater tissue ingrowth by neovascularization histological score than MWMD and MWVLS meshes (p<0.05) and significantly less fibrosis than LWMD and MWVLS meshes (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Pore shape and pore size significantly altered the mechanical strength of tissue ingrowth and host-site integration in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair, while mesh density had no effect.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mesh density; Pore size/shape; Synthetic mesh; T-peel mechanical test; Tissue integration; Ventral hernia repair

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25486631     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.11.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater        ISSN: 1878-0180


  15 in total

1.  Mesh implants: An overview of crucial mesh parameters.

Authors:  Lei-Ming Zhu; Philipp Schuster; Uwe Klinge
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-10-27

2.  Polypropelene-mesh properties and type of anchoring do not influence strength of parietal ingrowth.

Authors:  S Harsløf; N Zinther; T Harsløf; C Danielsen; P Wara; H Friis-Andersen
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Efficacy of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release in a porcine model.

Authors:  W H Tan; J M McAllister; J A Blatnik
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-10-28       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Non-healing wounds: Can it take different diagnosis?

Authors:  Hasan Calis; Serkan Sengul; Yilmaz Guler; Zulfikar Karabulut
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-12-29       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Adding sutures to tack fixation of mesh does not lower the re-operation rate after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Jason Joe Baker; Stina Öberg; Kristoffer Andresen; Frederik Helgstrand; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 3.445

6.  Analyzing material changes consistent with degradation of explanted polymeric hernia mesh related to clinical characteristics.

Authors:  Xinyue Lu; Melinda Harman; B Todd Heniford; Vedra Augenstein; Brittney McIver; William Bridges
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 3.453

Review 7.  Biomaterial-Based Approaches to Address Vein Graft and Hemodialysis Access Failures.

Authors:  Timothy C Boire; Daniel A Balikov; Yunki Lee; Christy M Guth; Joyce Cheung-Flynn; Hak-Joon Sung
Journal:  Macromol Rapid Commun       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 5.734

8.  International guidelines for groin hernia management.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.739

9.  Effect of pore size and spacing on neovascularization of a biodegradble shape memory polymer perivascular wrap.

Authors:  Timothy C Boire; Lauren E Himmel; Fang Yu; Christy M Guth; Bryan R Dollinger; Thomas A Werfel; Daniel A Balikov; Craig L Duvall
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2020-07-04       Impact factor: 4.854

10.  Collagen External Scaffolds Mitigate Intimal Hyperplasia and Improve Remodeling of Vein Grafts in a Rabbit Arteriovenous Graft Model.

Authors:  Haiming Li; Shoudong Chai; Longsheng Dai; Chengxiong Gu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.