Hernia

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 333–343 | Cite as

Dermal collagen matrices for ventral hernia repair: comparative analysis in a rat model

  • G. Broderick
  • J. McIntyre
  • M. Noury
  • H. M. Strom
  • C. Psoinos
  • A. Christakas
  • K. Billiar
  • Z. M. Hurwitz
  • J. F. Lalikos
  • R. A. Ignotz
  • R. M. Dunn
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare inflammatory responses, tissue integration, and strength of the acellular dermal collagen matrices AlloDerm®* Regenerative Tissue Matrix, Permacol™**Surgical Implant (Permacol), and CollaMend™*** Implant in a rat model for ventral hernia repair.

Methods

Rats were randomized into four groups and abdominal wall defects repaired with an inlay graft of AlloDerm, Permacol, or CollaMend. Rats were sacrificed at six time points and the defect area was removed and analyzed for tissue integration and physical strength.

Results

Variable cell infiltration was seen for the three implant groups. At of the all time points examined, cellular infiltration was most rapid in the AlloDerm implants and slowest for CollaMend. At 14 days, significant cell infiltration along with putative blood vessel formation was observed for AlloDerm, while Permacol implants exhibited a moderate level of infiltration. Very few cells penetrated CollaMend implants at 2 weeks. Cells had reached the center of the Permacol implants by 1 month, whereas CollaMend implants were encapsulated with a loose coat of disconnected cells, with very few cells infiltrating past the surface. At 6 months, AlloDerm and Permacol had evidence of cell penetration throughout the implants, while the CollaMend samples exhibited limited infiltration. Animals for each implant developed seromas: AlloDerm 40%, Permacol 33%, and CollaMend 83%. Mechanical testing revealed that AlloDerm at 6 months showed the lowest tensile strength, CollaMend the highest, and Permacol an intermediate level.

Conclusions

The three biologics exhibited different patterns and rates of cellular and vascular permeation in our rat model. AlloDerm implants exhibited the most rapid and extensive cellular infiltration, followed by Permacol. However, on gross examination, the AlloDerm implants thinned significantly by 6 months. In contrast, the Permacol and CollaMend implants appeared to be largely intact.

Keywords

Ventral hernia Dermal matrix Permacol AlloDerm CollaMend 

References

  1. 1.
    Hiles M, Record Ritchie RD, Altizer AM (2009) Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair?: a systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov 16:26–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuster R, Singh J, Safadi BY, Wren SM (2006) The use of acellular dermal matrix for contaminated abdominal wall defects: wound status predicts success. Am J Surg 192:594–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patton JH Jr, Berry S, Kralovich KA (2007) Use of human acellular dermal matrix in complex and contaminated abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg 193(3):360–363; discussion 363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellows CF, Albo D, Berger DH, Awad SS (2007) Abdominal wall repair using human acellular dermis. Am J Surg 194(2):192–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alaedeen DI, Lipman J, Medalie D, Rosen MJ (2007) The single-staged approach to the surgical management of abdominal wall hernias in contaminated fields. Hernia 11(1):41–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nahabedian MY (2007) Does AlloDerm stretch? Plast Reconstr Surg 120:1276–1280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delaney JP (2007) Experimental evaluation of four biologic prostheses for ventral hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1275–1285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maurice SM, Skeete DA (2009) Use of human acellular dermal matrix for abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg 197:35–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jin J, Rosen MJ, Blatnik J, McGee MF, Williams CP, Marks J, Ponsky J (2007) Use of acellular dermal matrix for complicated ventral hernia repair: does technique affect outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 205:654–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Moya MA, Dunham M, Inaba K, Bahouth H, Alam HB, Sultan B, Namias N (2008) Long-term outcome of acellular dermal matrix when used for large traumatic open abdomen. J Trauma 65:349–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jarman-Smith ML, Bodamyali T, Stevens C, Howell JA, Horrocks M, Chaudhuri JB (2004) Porcine collagen crosslinking, degradation and its capability for fibroblast adhesion and proliferation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 15(8):925–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macleod TM, Williams G, Sanders R, Green CJ (2005) Histological evaluation of Permacol as a subcutaneous implant over a 20-week period in the rat model. Br J Plast Surg 58:518–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammond TM, Chin-Aleong J, Navsaria H, Williams NS (2008) Human in vivo cellular response to a cross-linked acellular collagen implant. Br J Surg 95:438–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richter GT, Smith JE, Spencer HJ, Fan CY, Vural E (2007) Histological comparison of implanted cadaveric and porcine dermal matrix grafts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137:239–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaikh FM, Giri SK, Durrani S, Waldron D, Grace PA (2007) Experience with porcine acellular dermal collagen implant in one-stage tension-free reconstruction of acute and chronic abdominal wall defects. World J Surg 31(10):1966–1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cobb GA, Shaffer J (2005) Cross-linked acellular porcine dermal collagen implant in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: case-controlled study of operative variables and early complications. Int Surg 90(3 Suppl):S24–S29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adedeji OA, Bailey CA, Varma JS (2002) Porcine dermal collagen graft in abdominal-wall reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 55(1):85–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liyanage SH, Purohit GS, Frye JN, Giordano P (2006) Anterior abdominal wall reconstruction with a Permacol implant. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59(5):553–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chavarriaga LF, Lin E, Losken A, Cook MW, Jeansonne LO, White BC, Sweeney JF, Galloway JR, Davis SS Jr (2010) Management of complex abdominal wall defects using acellular porcine dermal collagen. Am Surg 76:96–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Butler CE, Burns NK, Campbell KT, Mathur AB, Jaffari MV, Rios CN (2010) Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 211:368–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liang H-C, Chang Y, Hsu C-K, Lee M-H, Sung H-W (2004) Effects of crosslinking degree of an acellular biological tissue on its tissue regeneration pattern. Biomaterials 25:3541–3552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Misra S, Raj PK, Tarr SM, Treat RC (2008) Results of AlloDerm use in abdominal hernia repair. Hernia 12:247–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hsu PW, Salgado CJ, Kent K, Finnegan M, Pello M, Simons R, Atabek U, Kann B (2009) Evaluation of porcine dermal collagen (Permacol) used in abdominal wall reconstruction. J Plast Recons Aesthetic Surg 62:1484–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Brien JA, Ignotz R, Montilla R, Broderick GB, Christakis A, Dunn RM (2011) Long-term histologic and mechanical results of a Permacol™ abdominal wall explant. Hernia 15:211–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Broderick
    • 1
  • J. McIntyre
    • 1
  • M. Noury
    • 1
  • H. M. Strom
    • 1
  • C. Psoinos
    • 1
  • A. Christakas
    • 2
  • K. Billiar
    • 2
  • Z. M. Hurwitz
    • 1
  • J. F. Lalikos
    • 1
  • R. A. Ignotz
    • 1
  • R. M. Dunn
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations