Literature DB >> 8673302

Comparison of a new type of polytetrafluoroethylene patch (Mycro Mesh) and polypropylene prosthesis (Marlex) for repair of abdominal wall defects.

J M Bellón1, J Buján, L A Contreras, A Carrera-San Martín, F Jurado.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two types of prosthetic material used for repairing hernial defects of the abdominal wall were compared: Mycro Mesh and Marlex. Mycro Mesh (MM) is a new polytetrafluoroethylene product of layered, microporous structure. Macroscopically, it presents regularly distributed, 2-mm orifices that perforate the biomaterial. Marlex (PL) is a well-known polypropylene mesh product with a macroporous structure. STUDY
DESIGN: In 24 white New Zealand rabbits, a full-thickness (except skin) 5 x 7-cm defect was created in the anterior wall of the abdomen. Defects were repaired with either MM (n = 12) or PL (n = 12) implants and studied at 14, 30, 60, and 90 days after implantation. Samples of the interfaces between prosthesis and subcutaneous tissue, visceral peritoneum, and receptor tissue, respectively, were studied. Samples were processed for optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). An immunohistochemical study was made using RAM-11, a monoclonal antibody specific for rabbit macrophages. The tensile strength of the repairs was made using an Instron tensiometer on 2-cm wide transversal strips that included the prosthesis and its anchor zones to the receptor tissue.
RESULTS: The formation of adhesions between the prosthesis and intestine was important with the PL implants but not with the MM implants. Optical microscopy and SEM showed formation of an organized connective tissue surrounding the MM implants. At 90 days, compact bridges of connective tissue linked the tissue on the subcutaneous and peritoneal sides of the prosthesis. The PL implants became integrated into a disorganized, highly vascularized connective tissue. The intensity of the macrophage response was similar in both prostheses and decreased between days 14 and 90 (Student-Newman-Keuls test p = 0.01). The tensile strength of the PL implants was greater than that of the MM implants. At 90 days, the tensile strength of the PL implants was mean equals 33.11 N and of the MM implants, mean equals 22.65 N (Mann-Whitney test p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The tissue integration of the PL and MM implants differed; fewer visceral adhesions formed on MM than on PL; the macrophage reaction was not determinant of the success of failure of either biomaterial; and the tensile strength of the prosthesis-receptor tissue interface was much greater in the PL implants than in the MM implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8673302

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  26 in total

1.  Improved biomechanical resistance using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene composite-structure prosthesis.

Authors:  Juan M Bellón; Marta Rodríguez; Natalia Serrano; Antonio Carrera San-Martín; Julia Buján
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2004-04-19       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Composite prostheses for the repair of abdominal wall defects: effect of the structure of the adhesion barrier component.

Authors:  J M Bellón; N García-Honduvilla; N Serrano; M Rodríguez; G Pascual; J Buján
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  Relationship between tissue ingrowth and mesh contraction.

Authors:  Rodrigo Gonzalez; Kim Fugate; David McClusky; E Matt Ritter; Andrew Lederman; Dirk Dillehay; C Daniel Smith; Bruce J Ramshaw
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Evaluation of a new composite prosthesis for the repair of abdominal wall defects.

Authors:  Paola Losi; Antonella Munaò; Dario Spiller; Enrica Briganti; Ilaria Martinelli; Marco Scoccianti; Giorgio Soldani
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 3.896

5.  A comparison of two types of preperitoneal mesh prostheses in stoma surgery: application to an animal model.

Authors:  G Tadeo; J Picazo; C Moreno; R Cuesta
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 6.  [Abdominal wall closure by incisional hernia and herniation after laparostoma].

Authors:  H-J Mischinger; P Kornprat; G Werkgartner; A El Shabrawi; S Spendel
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 0.955

7.  Complications, pitfalls, and outcomes after chest wall reconstruction.

Authors:  David T Netscher; Shayan Izaddoost; Brinkley Sandvall
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.314

8.  The influence of porosity on the integration histology of two polypropylene meshes for the treatment of abdominal wall defects in dogs.

Authors:  F H Greca; Z A Souza-Filho; A Giovanini; M R Rubin; R F Kuenzer; F B Reese; L M Araujo
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2007-09-07       Impact factor: 4.739

9.  Adhesion formation and reherniation differ between meshes used for abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  C J J M Sikkink; T S Vries de Reilingh; A W Malyar; J A Jansen; R P Bleichrodt; H van Goor
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2006-02-16       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  Evaluation of the acute scarring response to the implant of different types of biomaterial in the abdominal wall.

Authors:  J M Bellón; L A Contreras; G Pascual; J Buján
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.896

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.