Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Xenograft use in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a review of the literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Xenografts, bovine or porcine acellular collagen bioprostheses derived from dermis, pericardium, or small-intestine submucosa, were introduced to overcome synthetic mesh-related complications. Although there are eight commercially available xenografts, there is a paucity of empiric information to justify their use instead of the use of synthetic grafts. In addition, limited data are available about which graft characteristics are important and whether graft-reinforced repairs reduce recurrences and improve outcomes. To address these knowledge gaps, we conducted a Medline search of published reports on xenografts in animal and human trials. Histologic host response to implanted xenograft material depends primarily on chemical cross-linking and porosity, and it is limited to four responses: resorption, incorporation, encapsulation, and mixed. No clinical data unequivocally demonstrate an improved benefit to graft-reinforced repair.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ePTFE:

expanded polytetrafluoroethylene

SIS:

small-intestine submucosa

References

  1. Samuelsson EC, Arne Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF (1999) Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:299–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nygaard I, Bradley C, Brandt D, Women’s Health Initiative (2004) Pelvic organ prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol 104:489–497

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Helstrom L, Nilsson B (2005) Impact of vaginal surgery on sexuality and quality of life in women with urinary incontinence or genital descensus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84:79–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS (2001) Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 98:646–651

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bemelmans BL, Chapple CR (2003) Are slings now the gold standard treatment for the management of female urinary stress incontinence and if so which technique? Curr Opin Urol 13:301–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Birch C, Fynes MM (2002) The role of synthetic and biological prostheses in reconstructive pelvic floor surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14:527–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ et al (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1357–1362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cervigni M, Natale F (2001) The use of synthetics in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol 11:429–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Iglesia CB, Fenner DE, Brubaker L (1997) The use of mesh in gynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 8:105–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, Palomares D, Carrera-San Martin A (1998) Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials 19:669–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bobyn JD, Wilson GJ, MacGregor DC, Pilliar RM, Weatherly GC (1982) Effect of pore size on the peel strength of attachment of fibrous tissue to porous-surfaced implants. J Biomed Mater Res 16:571–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bafghi A, Benizri EI, Trastour C, Benizri EJ, Michiels JF, Bongain A (2005) Multifilament polypropylene mesh for urinary incontinence: 10 cases of infections requiring removal of the sling. BJOG 112:376–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baessler K, Hewson AD, Tunn R, Schuessler B, Maher CF (2005) Severe mesh complications following intravaginal slingplasty. Obstet Gynecol 106:713–716

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Simmons-Byrd A, Morff R (2002) Morphologic study of small intestinal submucosa as a body wall repair device. J Surg Res 103:190–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gandhi S, Kubba LM, Abramov Y, Botros SM, Goldberg RP, Victor TA et al (2005) Histopathologic changes of porcine dermis xenografts for transvaginal suburethral slings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1643–1648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Whitson B (2001) Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res 99:282–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Record RD, Hillegonds D, Simmons C, Tullius R, Rickey FA, Elmore D et al (2001) In vivo degradation of 14C-labeled small intestinal submucosa (SIS) when used for urinary bladder repair. Biomaterials 22:2653–2659

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Voytik-Harbin SL, Brightman AO, Kraine MR, Waisner B, Badylak SF (1997) Identification of extractable growth factors from small intestinal submucosa. J Cell Biochem 67:478–491

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Clarke KM, Lantz GC, Salisbury SK, Badylak SF, Hiles MC, Voytik SL (1996) Intestine submucosa and polypropylene mesh for abdominal wall repair in dogs. J Surg Res 60:107–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wiedemann A, Otto M (2004) Small intestinal submucosa for pubourethral sling suspension for the treatment of stress incontinence: first histopathological results in humans. J Urol 172:215–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zheng F, Verbeken E, de Ridder D, Deprest J (2005) Improved surgical outcome by modification of porcine dermal collagen implant in abdominal wall reconstruction in rats. Neurourol Urodyn 24:362–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zheng F, Lin Y, Verbeken E, Claerhout F, Fastrez M, De Ridder D et al (2004) Host response after reconstruction of abdominal wall defects with porcine dermal collagen in a rat model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1961–1970

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Konstantinovic ML, Lagae P, Zheng F, Verbeken EK, De Ridder D, Deprest JA (2005) Comparison of host response to polypropylene and non-cross-linked porcine small intestine serosal-derived collagen implants in a rat model. BJOG 112:1554–1560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ansaloni L, Catena F, D’Alessandro L (2003) Prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing Lichtenstein’s repair of inguinal hernia with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis gold soft tissue graft: preliminary results. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parm 74(Suppl 2):10–14

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cole E, Gomelsky A, Dmochowski RR (2003) Encapsulation of a porcine dermis pubovaginal sling. J Urol 170:1950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Altman D, Zetterstrom J, Lopez A, Anzen B, Falconer C, Hjern F et al (2005) Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1233–1241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bellon JM, Rodriguez M, Serrano N, San-Martin AC, Bujan J (2004) Improved biomechanical resistance using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene composite-structure prosthesis. World J Surg 28:461–465 (May, epub 2004 Apr 19)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gomelsky A, Rudy DC, Dmochowski RR (2004) Porcine dermis interposition graft for repair of high grade anterior compartment defects with or without concomitant pelvic organ prolapse procedures. J Urol 171:1581–1584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Leboeuf L, Miles RA, Kim SS, Gousse AE (2004) Grade 4 cystocele repair using four-defect repair and porcine xenograft acellular matrix (Pelvicol): outcome measures using SEAPI. Urology 64:282–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Salomon LJ, Detchev R, Barranger E, Cortez A, Callard P, Darai E (2004) Treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse with porcine skin collagen implant by the transobturator route: preliminary results. Eur Urol 45:219–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Verleyen P, Filip C, Bart K, Frank VDA, Jan D, Dirk DR. A prospective randomised trial comparing Pelvicol® and Vicryl® for cystocoele repair in the raz-colposuspension [abstract 613]. Available from: http://www.urotoday.com/264/conference_reports/ics_2004/ics2004_conferences_bard_sponsored.html

  36. Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Gattei U, Magatii F, Kojancic E, Riva D et al. Multicentre randomized trial of Pelvicol® implant to prevent recurrence of anterior vaginal wall prolapse in women undergoing primary surgery for genital prolapse [abstract 289]. Available from: http://www.continet.org/publications/2004/pdf/0289.pdf

  37. Dell JR, O’Kelley KR (2005) PelviSoft BioMesh augmentation of rectocele repair: the initial clinical experience in 35 patients. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:44–47 (Jan–Feb, epub 2004 Sep 1)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sung VW, Sokol ER, Rardin CR, Clemons JL, Meyers DL. Porcine-derived small intestinal submucosa graft-augmented rectocele repair [abstract]. Available from: http://www.augs.org/files/public/2004_Non-Oral_Poster_Presentations.pdf

  39. Derwin K, Androjna C, Spencer E, Safran O, Bauer TW, Hunt T et al (2004) Porcine small intestine submucosa as a flexor tendon graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:245–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mantovani F, Trinchieri A, Castelnuovo C, Romano AL, Pisani E (2003) Reconstructive urethroplasty using porcine acellular matrix. Eur Urol 44:600–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. O’Connor RC, Hollowell CM, Steinberg GD (2002) Distal ureteral replacement with tubularized porcine small intestine submucosa. Urology 60:697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Editing, proofreading, and reference verification were provided by the Section of Scientific Publications, Mayo Clinic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John B. Gebhart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trabuco, E.C., Klingele, C.J. & Gebhart, J.B. Xenograft use in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J 18, 555–563 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0288-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0288-2

Keywords

Navigation