International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 1271–1278 | Cite as

Porcine urinary bladder matrix-polypropylene mesh: a novel scaffold material reduces immunorejection in rat pelvic surgery

  • Lubin Liu
  • Li Deng
  • Yanzhou Wang
  • Liangpeng Ge
  • Yong Chen
  • Zhiqing LiangEmail author
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The present study set out to modify polypropylene vaginal surgical material using porcine urinary bladder matrix (UBM) in order to improve biocompatibility. The aim was to develop a compound scaffold that induced less vaginal erosion and to evaluate host immunoreactivity to this material in vivo.


Forty-eight Sprague–Dawley rats were randomly divided into four equal groups. One group underwent a sham operation, and the other groups underwent vaginal implantation with different materials: UBM (U); UBM + polypropylene (UP); or polypropylene (P). The host tissue response was determined by macro-observation, and by histological and immunohistochemical methods at 7, 14, 21, or 28 days after surgery.


The inflammation reaction was strongest throughout the entire observation time in Group P, but was weaker and had a tendency to decrease with time in Groups U and UP. The presence of the UBM material in the compound scaffold allowed the polypropylene to fuse with newly proliferating surrounding tissue and resulted in less rejection of the material by the host, as indicated by the reduced appearance of CD4-, and CD8-positive cells.


Porcine UBM allowed mechanical isolation of polypropylene, and also reduced the immune reaction to polypropylene. This study suggests that the UBM + polypropylene compound scaffold may be a promising material for clinical use in pelvic reconstruction surgery.


Immune reaction Pelvic organ prolapse Polypropylene Surgical mesh Urinary bladder Xenograft 



This work was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30870621)

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Chaliha C, Khullar V (2006) Surgical repair of vaginal prolapse: a gynaecological hernia. Int J Surg 4(4):242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman D, Lopez A, Gustafsson C, Falconer C, Nordenstam J, Zetterstrom J (2005) Anatomical outcome and quality of life following posterior vaginal wall prolapse repair using collagen xenograft. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(4):298–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2 Pt 1):242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rzepka J, Brocker K, Alt C, Corteville C, Sohn C, Lenz F (2010) Pelvic organ prolapse: does the postoperative course of mesh-repair surgery differ in elderly women when compared with younger patients. J Obstet Gynaecol 30(8):852–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nazemi TM, Kobashi KC (2007) Complications of grafts used in female pelvic floor reconstruction: Mesh erosion and extrusion. Indian J Urol 23(2):153–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liang CC, Lin YH, Chang YL, Chang SD (2011) Urodynamic and clinical effects of transvaginal mesh repair for severe cystocele with and without urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 112(3):182–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2 Pt 1):293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Badylak SF (2004) Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Transpl Immunol 12(3–4):367–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Badylak SF (2007) The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. Biomaterials 28(25):3587–3593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ge L, Zheng S, Wei H (2009) Comparison of histological structure and biocompatibility between human acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and porcine ADM. Burns 35(1):46–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaliha C, Khalid U, Campagna L, Digesu GA, Ajay B, Khullar V (2006) SIS graft for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair—a case-controlled study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(5):492–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franklin ME Jr, Gonzalez JJ Jr, Glass JL (2004) Use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic device for laparoscopic repair of hernias in contaminated fields: 2-year follow-up. Hernia 8(3):186–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arnold GA, Mathews KG, Roe S, Mente P, Seaboch T (2009) Biomechanical comparison of four soft tissue replacement materials: an in vitro evaluation of single and multilaminate porcine small intestinal submucosa, canine fascia lata, and polypropylene mesh. Vet Surg 38(7):834–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu L, Li D, Wang Y, Xu H, Ge L, Liang Z (2011) Evaluation of the biocompatibility and mechanical properties of xenogeneic (porcine) extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffold for pelvic reconstruction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jansen RG, van Kuppevelt TH, Daamen WF, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Von den Hoff JW (2008) Tissue reactions to collagen scaffolds in the oral mucosa and skin of rats: environmental and mechanical factors. Arch Oral Biol 53(4):376–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elmer C, Blomgren B, Falconer C, Zhang A, Altman D (2009) Histological inflammatory response to transvaginal polypropylene mesh for pelvic reconstructive surgery. J Urol 181(3):1189–1195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huffaker RK, Muir TW, Rao A, Baumann SS, Kuehl TJ, Pierce LM (2008) Histologic response of porcine collagen-coated and uncoated polypropylene grafts in a rabbit vagina model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):582.e1–582.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bayrak A, Tyralla M, Ladhoff J et al (2010) Human immune responses to porcine xenogeneic matrices and their extracellular matrix constituents in vitro. Biomaterials 31(14):3793–3803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang M, Liu L (2008) MHC II gene knockout in tissue engineering may prevent immune rejection of transplants. Med Hypotheses 70(4):798–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown RA, Phillips JB (2007) Cell responses to biomimetic protein scaffolds used in tissue repair and engineering. Int Rev Cytol 262:75–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schutte RJ, Xie L, Klitzman B, Reichert WM (2009) In vivo cytokine-associated responses to biomaterials. Biomaterials 30(2):160–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mallapragada SK, Narasimhan B (2008) Immunomodulatory biomaterials. Int J Pharm 364(2):265–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Badylak SF, Gilbert TW (2008) Immune response to biologic scaffold materials. Semin Immunol 20(2):109–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lubin Liu
    • 1
  • Li Deng
    • 1
  • Yanzhou Wang
    • 1
  • Liangpeng Ge
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yong Chen
    • 1
  • Zhiqing Liang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southwestern HospitalThird Military Medical UniversityChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Chongqing Academy of Animal SciencesChongqingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations