Adhesion formation and reherniation differ between meshes used for abdominal wall reconstruction
- 123 Downloads
Incisional hernia is a common surgical problem, frequently requiring prosthetic mesh repair. The demands of the ideal mesh seem conflicting; ingrowth at the mesh–fascia interface, without development of adhesions at the visceral mesh surface. Various antiadhesives combined with macroporous mesh and composite meshes were studied for prevention of adhesions to mesh and ingrowth into the fascia. In 60 rats an abdominal wall defect was created and repaired with underlay mesh. Rats were divided into six groups and treated with polypropylene mesh (PPM, control), PPM with auto-cross-linked polymers (ACP) gel, PPM with fibrinogen glue (FG), polypropylene/expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) mesh, polypropylene/sodium hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose (HA/CMC) mesh, and polypropylene-collagen/polyethylene-glycol/glycerol (CPGG) mesh. Mesh infection was assessed in the postoperative period, adhesions and reherniations were scored at sacrifice 2 months after operation, and tensile strength of the mesh–tissue interface was measured. Six rats developed mesh infection, half of them were treated with PPM/ePTFE. The PPM/HA/CMC group showed a significant reduction in the amount and severity of adhesions. In animals treated with PPM/ACP and PPM/FG, severity of adhesions was reduced as well. Reherniation rate in the PPM/ACP group was 50% and significantly higher than that in other groups. Rats in the PPM/HA/CMC had the highest tensile strength. PPM/HA/CMC approaches the demands of the ideal mesh best, having superior antiadhesive properties, no reherniation and no infection in this rat model of incisional hernia.
KeywordsAdhesions Antiadhesives Abdominal wall hernia (Composite) mesh Experimental Rats
- 3.Bellón JM, Buján J, Contreras LA, Carrera-San Martin A, Jurado F (1986) Comparison of a new type of polytetrafluoroethylene patch (mycro mesh) and polypropylene prosthesis (marlex) for repair of abdominal wall defects. J Am Coll Surg 183:11–18Google Scholar
- 14.Zühlke HV, Lorenz EMP, Straub EM, Savvas V (1990) Pathophysiologie und Klassifikation von Adhäsionen. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Chir 345:1009–1016Google Scholar
- 15.Becker JM, Dayton MT, Fazio VW, Beck DE, Stryker SJ, Wexner SD, Wolff BG, Roberts PL, Smith LE, Sweeney SA, Moore M (1996) Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 183:297–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Lindenberg S, Lauritsen JG (1984) Prevention of peritoneal adhesion formation by fibrin sealant. Ann Chir Gyn 73:11–13Google Scholar