Hernia

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 33–38 | Cite as

Effect of suture material on tensile strength and complication rate in abdominal fascial defects repaired with acellular dermal matrix

  • A. A. Winkler
  • M. L. Milburn
  • L. T. HoltonIII
  • N. H. Goldberg
  • R. P. Silverman
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Repair of ventral hernias represents a challenging problem for surgeons. AlloDerm® (LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA), an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) product derived from cadaveric human skin, has gained in popularity in the management of abdominal hernias because of its ability to support neovascularization and therefore resist infection. Surgeons have traditionally used nonabsorbable suture when using ADM in this setting, perhaps because of concerns regarding wound strength. This study was undertaken to examine the influence of suture material on wound breaking strength and complication rates in abdominal wall defects closed with ADM.

Methods

Full-thickness abdominal defects were created in athymic rats and immediately repaired with an ADM interposition graft using either interrupted Prolene® or Maxon® suture. Complications were recorded over time and the animals were sacrificed at 1 month intervals. The abdominal repair complex was harvested and wound strength was measured using a tensiometer.

Results

There were no hernias in any of the groups. There were also no cases of major adhesions to the AlloDerm®. Two rats in the Prolene® group developed a stitch extrusion through the ventral skin. Wound breaking strength increased significantly from the second to third month after surgery in both suture groups (p = 0.0000, LSD test). The breaking strength of the abdominal fascia-ADM complex increased over the course of the experiment in both test groups, but no significant difference was found between the groups at any time point (p = 0.3157). At 3 months, the breaking strength of the Prolene® group and Maxon® group was nearly identical (27.1 N ± SD 7.4 and 29.7 N ± SD 9.6, respectively).

Conclusions

We were unable to identify a significant difference in breaking strength at the interface between ADM and normal, native fascia when using permanent versus resorbable sutures.

Keywords

Acellular dermal matrix Abdominal wall reconstruction Ventral hernia Sutures Tensile strength 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a grant from LifeCell Corporation. Drs. Silverman and Goldberg have been consultants and members of the speaker’s bureau for LifeCell Corporation.

References

  1. 1.
    Houck JP, Rypins EB, Sarfeh IJ, Juler GL, Shimoda KJ (1989) Repair of incisional hernia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 169(5):397–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mandracchia VJ, John KJ, Sanders SM (2001) Wound healing. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 18(1):1–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Disa JJ, Klein MH, Goldberg NH (1996) Advantages of autologous fascia versus synthetic patch abdominal reconstruction in experimental animal defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 97(4):801–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Disa JJ, Goldberg NH, Carlton JM, Robertson BC, Slezak S (1998) Restoring abdominal wall integrity in contaminated tissue-deficient wounds using autologous fascia grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 101(4):979–986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, Boelhouwer RU, de Vries BC, Salu MK, Wereldsma JC, Bruijninckx CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343(6):392–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karakousis CP, Volpe C, Tanski J, Colby ED, Winston J, Driscoll DL (1995) Use of a mesh for musculoaponeurotic defects of the abdominal wall in cancer surgery and the risk of bowel fistulas. J Am Coll Surg 181(1):11–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauer JJ, Harris MT, Kreel I, Gelernt IM (1999) Twelve-year experience with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Mt Sinai J Med 66(1):20–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eppley BL (2001) Experimental assessment of the revascularization of acellular human dermis for soft-tissue augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(3):757–762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sinha UK, Chang KE, Shih CW (2001) Reconstruction of pharyngeal defects using AlloDerm and sternocleidomastoid muscle flap. Laryngoscope 111(11.1):1910–1916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Callan DP, Silverstein LH (1998) Use of acellular dermal matrix for increasing keratinized tissue around teeth and implants. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 10(6):731–734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kridel RW, Foda H, Lunde KC (1998) Septal perforation repair with acellular human dermal allograft. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124(1):73–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sinha UK, Saadat D, Doherty CM, Rice DH (2003) Use of AlloDerm implant to prevent Frey Syndrome after parotidectomy. Arch Facial Plast Surg 5(1):109–11213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tobin HA, Karas ND (1998) Lip augmentation using an AlloDerm graft. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 56(6):722–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson IT, Yavuzer R (2001) AlloDerm for dorsal nasal irregularities. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(2):559–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gryskiewicz JM, Rohrich RJ, Reagan BJ, Schwartz BM (2001) The use of AlloDerm for the correction of nasal contour deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(2):571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Menon NG, Rodriguez ED, Byrnes CK, Girotto JA, Goldberg NH, Silverman RP (2003) Revascularization of human acellular dermis in full-thickness abdominal wall reconstruction in the rabbit model. Ann Plast Surg 50(5):523–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silverman RP, Li EN, Holton LH III, Sawan KT, Goldberg NH (2004) Ventral hernia repair using allogenic acellular dermal matrix in a swine model. Hernia 8(4):336–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holton LH III, Kim D, Silverman RP, Rodriguez ED, Singh N, Goldberg NH (2005) Human acellular dermal matrix for repair of abdominal wall defects: review of clinical experience and experimental data. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 15(5):547–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prolene® polypropylene suture package insert information, Ethicon, Inc. 1995Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maxon® (polyglyconate) suture package insert information, Syneture, Inc. 2004Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeSagun EZ, Botts JL, Srivastava A, Hanumadass M, Walter RJ (2001) Long-term outcome of xenogenic dermal matrix implantation in immunocompetent rats. J Surg Res 96(1):96–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. A. Winkler
    • 1
  • M. L. Milburn
    • 2
  • L. T. HoltonIII
    • 2
  • N. H. Goldberg
    • 2
  • R. P. Silverman
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Maryland Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of Maryland Medical CenterBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.University of Maryland Division of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of Maryland Medical CenterBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations