Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 337–338 | Cite as

Reply to “In vivo polypropylene mesh degradation is hardly a myth”

  • Shelby F. Thames
  • Joshua B. White
  • Kevin L. OngEmail author
Letter to the Editor

We appreciate the comments provided by Thompson et al. in their Letter to the Editor, regarding our study “The myth: in vivo degradation of polypropylene-based meshes” [1]. However, we question the motives of the authors, who have notably disclosed that they provide medicolegal testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs in mesh litigation, for bringing their courtroom rhetoric into this discussion.

Thompson et al. grossly erred in claiming that we only analyzed the exposed surface of the explants, and not the flaked material that had been removed when cleaning the explants (“removed material”) and ended up in the cleaning solution. As stated in our paper, however, the flaked material was analyzed using light microscopy (LM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) microscopy before cleaning and after each of the five sequences of the overall cleaning process. Analyzing the cleaning solution would be redundant and therefore serve no purpose, i.e., the...

Keywords

Consult Firm Cleaning Solution Mesh Fiber Fixative Removal Explanted Mesh 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Thames SF, White JB, Ong KL. The myth: in vivo degradation of polypropylene-based meshes. Int Urogynecol J. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3131-4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clavé A, Yahi H, Hammou JC, Montanari S, Gounon P, Clavé H.. Polypropylene as a reinforcement in pelvic surgery is not inert: comparative analysis of 100 explants. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(3):261–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Imel A, Malmgren T, Dadmun M, Gido S, Mays J. In vivo oxidative degradation of polypropylene pelvic mesh. Biomaterials. 2015;73:131–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iakovlev VV, Guelcher SA, Bendavid R. Degradation of polypropylene in vivo. A microscopic analysis of meshes explanted from patients. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33502.
  5. 5.
    Blackadder DA, Le Poidevin GJ. Dissolution of polypropylene in organic solvents. I. Partial dissolution. Polymer. 1976;177(5):387–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mary C, Marois Y, King MW, et al. Comparison of the in vivo behavior of polyvinylidene fluoride and polypropylene sutures used in vascular surgery. ASAIO J. 1998;44(3):199–206.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hlady V, Buijs J. Protein adsorption on solid surfaces. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 1996;7(1):72–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mark JE. Polymer data handbook. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shelby F. Thames
    • 1
  • Joshua B. White
    • 2
  • Kevin L. Ong
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.The University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  2. 2.Exponent, Inc.PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations