, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 315-319
Date: 15 Jan 2011

Comparison of Permacol™ and Strattice™ for the repair of abdominal wall defects

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Background

Incisional hernias repaired with mesh can be expected have a lower recurrence rate than with primary repair. Biologic implants have replaced synthetic meshes in certain complex settings. We compared two porcine-dermis derived implants—cross-linked Permacol™ biologic implant and non-cross linked Strattice-firm™ tissue matrix—in a ventral hernia animal model. Our hypothesis is that cross-linked biologic implants are remodeled differently and thus behave differently than non-cross-linked biologic implants.

Methods

Eighty-nine, female Sprague-Dawley rats had a 3 × 3 cm full-thickness segment of the abdominal wall excised. A 3 × 3 cm biologic mesh, either Permacol™ or Strattice™, was secured and the skin was closed. At 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month time intervals, rats in each group were sacrificed and the mesh was excised. The number of adhesions, surface area, mesh thickness and tensile strength were determined, and immunohistochemical analysis performed.

Results

Permacol™ biologic implant maintained thickness while Strattice™ thickness decreased significantly starting at 3 months. Adhesion area and tenacity were not significantly different between Permacol™ and Strattice™ at all time points. The tensile strength of the Permacol™ biologic implant was greater than that of Strattice™ at 3, 6 and 12 months. Migration of host cells and neo-vascularization was observed in both implant groups.

Conclusions

Cross-linked materials may prove more durable in the remodeling process as suggested by the increased thinning and weakening observed in non-cross-linked biomesh.