Advertisement

Hernia

pp 1–7 | Cite as

Dynamic creep properties of a novel nanofiber hernia mesh in abdominal wall repair

  • B. EastEmail author
  • M. Plencner
  • M. Otahal
  • E. Amler
  • A. C. de Beaux
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Incisional hernia is the most common complication following abdominal surgery. While mesh repair is common, none of the current meshes mimic the physiology of the abdominal wall. This study compares suture only repair with polypropylene mesh and a prototype of a novel implant (poly-epsilon-caprolactone nanofibers) and their influence on the physiology of an abdominal wall in an animal model.

Methods

27 Chinchilla rabbits were divided into six groups based on the type of the implant. Midline abdominal incision was repaired using one of the compared materials with suture alone serving as the control. 6 weeks post-surgery animals were killed and their explanted abdominal wall subjected to biomechanical testing.

Results

Both—hysteresis and maximum strength curves showed high elasticity and strength in groups where the novel implant was used. Polypropylene mesh proved as stiff and fragile compared to other groups.

Conclusion

Poly-epsilon-caprolactone nanofiber scaffold is able to improve the dynamic properties of healing fascia with no loss of maximum tensile strength when compared to polypropylene mesh in an animal model.

Keywords

Nanofibres PCL Hernia Dynamic properties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The article was supported by the Internal Grant Agency of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (Project no. NV17-32285A).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors state that they have no conflicts of interests that could potentially influence or bias the submitted work.

Ethical approval

The Ethical Principles and Guidelines for Scientific Experiments on Animals were respected throughout this study. The maintenance and handling of experimental animals followed EU Council Directive (86/609 EEC), and the animals were treated in accordance with the principles of Care and Use of Animals. The investigation was approved by the Expert Committee of the Institute of Physiology, Academy of Sciences, Prague, CR, and conformed to Czech Animal Protection Law no. 246/92.

Informed consent

No informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Meijer EJ, Timmermans L et al. The principles of abdominal wound closure. Acta Chir Belg. 2013;113(4):239–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luijendijk RW, Hop WC et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343(6):392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA et al (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azimi B, Nourpanah P et al (2014) Poly (ε-caprolactone) fiber: an overview. J Eng Fibers Fabr 9(3):74–90Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weyhe D, Belyaev O et al (2007) Improving outcomes in hernia repair by the use of light meshes—a comparison of different implant constructions based on a critical appraisal of the literature. World J Surg 31:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bringman S, Conze J et al (2010) Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes. Hernia 14:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venugopal J, Low S et al (2008) Interaction of cells and nanofiber scaffolds in tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 84:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rampichova M, Chvojka J et al (2012) Elastic three-dimensional poly (ε-caprolactone) nanofibre scaffold enhances migration, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Prolif 46:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Velayudhan S, Martin D et al (2009) Evaluation of dynamic creep properties of surgical mesh prostheses—uniaxial fatigue. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 5:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El Fray M, Prowans P et al (2006) Biocompatibility and fatigue properties of polystyrene-polyisobutylene–polystyrene, an emerging thermoplastic elastomeric biomaterial. Biomacromolecules 7:844–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El Fray M, Altstadt V. Fatigue behaviour of multiblock thermoplastic elastomers. II. Dynamic creep of poly(aliphatic/aromatic-ester) copolymers. Polymer 2003;44:4643–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lukas D, Sarkar A et al (2009) Physical principles of electrospinning (electrospinning as a nano-scale technology of the twenty-first century). Textile Progress 41:1–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klinge U, Conze J et al (1996) Pathophysiology of the abdominal wall. Chirurg 67(3):229–233Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eliason BJ, Frisella MM et al. Effect of repetitive loading on the mechanical properties of synthetic hernia repair materials. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213(3):430–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bhardway N, Kundu SC (2010) Electrospinning: a fascinating fiber fabrication technique. Biotechnol Adv 28:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Place ES, George JH et al (2009) Synthetic polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. Chem Soc Rev 38:1139–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li WJ, Danielson KG et al (2003) Biological response of chondrocytes cultured in three-dimensional nanofibrous poly(e-caprolactone) scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A. 67:1105–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li WJ, Jiang YJ, Tuan RS (2006) Chondrocyte phenotype in engineered fibrous matrix is regulated by fiber size. Tissue Eng. 12:1775–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ma Z, Kotaki M et al (2005) Potential of nanofiber matrix as tissue-engineering scaffolds. Tissue Eng 11:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agarwal S, Wendorff JH et al (2008) Use of electrospinning technique for biomedical applications. Polymer 49:5603–5621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plencner M, East B et al. Abdominal closure reinforcement by using polypropylene mesh functionalized with poly-ε-caprolactone nanofibers and growth factors for prevention of incisional hernia formation. Int J Nanomed. 2014;9:3263–77Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen M, Patra PK et al (2007) Role of fiber diameter in adhesion and proliferation of NIH 3T3 fibroblast on electrospun polycaprolactone scaffolds. Tissue Eng 13:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanders JE, Stiles CE et al (2000) Tissue response to single-polymer fibers of varying diameters: evaluation of fibrous encapsulation and macrophage density. J Biomed Mater Res 52:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marimuthu M, Kim S (2009) Survey of the state of the art in biomaterials, cells, genes and proteins integrated into micro- and nanoscaffolds for tissue regeneration. Curr Nanosci. 5:189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240(4):578–585Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. East
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. Plencner
    • 3
    • 4
  • M. Otahal
    • 5
    • 6
  • E. Amler
    • 3
  • A. C. de Beaux
    • 7
  1. 1.3rd Department of SurgeryMotol University HospitalPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.2nd Medical Faculty at Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Biophysics, 2nd Medical FacultyCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Department of Experimental MedicineCzech Academy of SciencePragueCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Biomechanics and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and SportCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  6. 6.Department of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Biomedical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  7. 7.Royal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations