Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Immunochemical analysis on polypropylene mesh: does mesh size make a difference?

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of the study is to demonstrate the impact of the size of implanted mesh in relation to its immunohistochemical reaction implanted into animal models.

Methods

An experimental study utilizing 54 female Sprague Dawley (SD) rats was divided into five groups: control, sham, and study groups (mesh-small [M-S], mesh-medium [M-M], mesh-large [M-L]). The M-S group used a mesh size of 0.2 × 0.2 cm, the M-M group a mesh size of 0.5 × 0.5 cm, and the M-L a mesh size of 0.7 × 1.0 cm. The sham group underwent vaginal dissection with no mesh implantation. The rats were sacrificed using isoflurane overdose on days 7 and 30. The mesh with the surrounding vaginal and bladder wall tissues were removed and processed for histochemical and western blot analysis.

Results

There is a significant increase in IL-1 and TNF-α immunoreactivity in the M-M and M-L groups on day 7 when compared with the sham group with p values of 0.001 and < 0.001 respectively. M-L showed significantly higher immunoreactivity to TNF-α persisting until day 30. All study groups presented a significantly higher immunoreactivity to MMP-2 and NGF on day 7. However, reactivity to NGF does not persist to day 30 in all groups. Immunoreactivity to CD 31 on days 7 and 30 appears significantly greater in the M-M and M-L groups, with the reaction in the M-L group continuing until day 30.

Conclusion

Mesh size is directly proportional to the inflammatory reaction in the host tissue. The prolonged inflammatory process leads to delayed tissue remodeling and angiogenesis, which could delay mesh–tissue integration.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of vaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. Silver Spring, MD:FDA; 2011.

  2. Ugianskiene A, Davila GW, Su TH, FIGO Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Committee. FIGO review of statements on use of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;147(2):147–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mangir N, Roman S, MacNeil S. The changing regulatory landscape for biomedical implants and its relationship to withdrawal of some vaginal mesh products. Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29(4):414–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abbott S, Unger CA, Evans JM, Jallad K, Mishra K, Karram MM, et al. Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):163.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG, et al. Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Jul;22(7):789–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel H, Ostergard DR, Sternschuss G. Polypropylene mesh and the host response. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(6):669–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kelly M, Macdougall K, Olabisi O, McGuire N. In vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models: a review of biocompatibility. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):171–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ito Y, Kaneko N, Iwasaki T, Morikawa S, Kaneko K, Masumoto J. IL-1 as a target in inflammation. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2015;15(3):206–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20(2):86–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kawamoto K, Matsuda H. Nerve growth factor and wound healing. Prog Brain Res. 2004;146:369–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu HT, Chen CY, Kuo HC. Urinary nerve growth factor levels in overactive bladder syndrome and lower urinary tract disorders. J Formos Med Assoc. 2010;109(12):862–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sheng W, Zhang H, Ruth KH. Could urinary nerve growth factor be a biomarker for overactive bladder? A meta-analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(7):1703–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lo TS, Lin YH, Chu HC, Cortes EFM, Pue LB, Tan YL, et al. Association of urodynamics and lower urogenital tract nerve growth factor after synthetic vaginal mesh implantation on a rat model. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(1):173–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lo TS, Lin YH, Uy-Patrimonio MC, Chu HC, Hsieh WC, Chua S. Dissecting of the paravesical space associated with lower urinary tract dysfunction—a rat model. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1718.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. La Fleur M, Underwood JL, Rappolee DA, Werb Z. Basement membrane and repair of injury to peripheral nerve: defining a potential role for macrophages, matrix metalloproteinases, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1. J Exp Med. 1996;184(6):2311–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen T, Mobashery S, Mayland C. Roles of matrix metalloproteinases in cutaneous wound healing. In: Alexandrescu (ed) Wound healing: new insights into ancient challenges. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5772/64611.

  18. Liang R, Zong W, Palcsey S, Abramowitch S, Moalli PA. Impact of prolapse meshes on the metabolism of vaginal extracellular matrix in rhesus macaque. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(2):174.e1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ayuk SM, Abrahamse H, Houreld NN. The role of matrix metalloproteinases in diabetic wound healing in relation to photobiomodulation. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:2897656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hilger WS, Walter A, Zobitz ME, Leslie KO, Magtibay P, Cornella J. Histological and biomechanical evaluation of implanted graft materials in a rabbit vaginal and abdominal model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1826–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pierce LM, Rao A, Baumann SS, Glassberg JE, Kuehl TJ, Muir TW. Long-term histologic response to synthetic and biologic graft materials implanted in the vagina and abdomen of a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):546.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Endo M, Urbankova I, Vlacil J, Sengupta S, Deprest T, Klosterhalfen B, et al. Cross-linked xenogenic collagen implantation in the sheep model for vaginal surgery. Gynecol Surg. 2015;12(2):113–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feola A, Endo M, Urbankova I, Vlacil J, Deprest T, Bettin S, et al. Host reaction to vaginally inserted collagen containing polypropylene implants in sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):474.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lo TS, Lin YH, Yusoff FM, Chu HC, Hsieh WC, Uy-Patrimonio MC. The immunohistochemical and urodynamic evaluation towards the collagen-coated and non-coated polypropylene meshes implanted in the pelvic wall of the rats. Sci Rep. 2016;6:38960.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Manodoro S, Endo M, Uvin P, Albersen M, Vláčil J, Engels A, et al. Graft-related complications and biaxial tensiometry following experimental vaginal implantation of flat mesh of variable dimensions. BJOG. 2013;120(2):244–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Prudente A, Favaro WJ, Latuf Filho P, Zanettini Riccetto CL. Host inflammatory response to polypropylene implants: insights from a quantitative immunohistochemical and birefringence analysis in a rat subcutaneous model. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(3):585–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bronzatto E, Riccetto CLZ. Pro-inflammatory cytokines and metalloproteinase activation in polypropylene mesh implant in rat subcutaneous tissue. Int Braz J Urol. 2018;44(4):819–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Chang Gung University Hospital Research Grants CMRPG2G0381, and approved by Chang Gung Hospital’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee IACUC No. 2016 093003.

Financial disclaimer

This study was supported by Chang Gung University Hospital Research Grants CMRPG2G0381.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linkou, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, 5, Fu-Hsin Street, Kwei-shan, Tao-Yuan City, Taiwan, 333, Republic of China

    Tsia-Shu Lo, Yi-Hao Lin & Hsiao-Chien Chu

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung Medical Center, Keelung, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Tsia-Shu Lo & Hsiao-Chien Chu

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Tsia-Shu Lo

  4. School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Tsia-Shu Lo & Yi-Hao Lin

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cebu Institute of Medicine-Cebu Velez General Hospital, Cebu City, Philippines

    Sandy Chua

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Regional Hospital, Bacolod City, Philippines

    Ma. Clarissa Uy-Patrimonio

  7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National University Hospital of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Kai Lyn Ng

Authors
  1. Tsia-Shu Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Hao Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandy Chua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hsiao-Chien Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ma. Clarissa Uy-Patrimonio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kai Lyn Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.S. Lo: protocol/project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript editing; Y.H. Lin: data collection/data analysis; S. Chua: data collection, data analysis and manuscript editing; H.C. Chu: laboratory handling, data collection; M.C. Uy-Patrimonio: manuscript writing; K.L. Ng: data analysis and manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsia-Shu Lo.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

No further conflicts of interest are claimed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lo, TS., Lin, YH., Chua, S. et al. Immunochemical analysis on polypropylene mesh: does mesh size make a difference?. Int Urogynecol J 32, 47–55 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04399-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04399-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation