Evaluation of a new composite prosthesis for the repair of abdominal wall defects
- 821 Downloads
The degree of integration of biomaterials used in the repair of abdominal wall defects seems to depend upon the structure of the prosthesis. The present investigation evaluates the behaviour in terms of adhesion formation and integration of a new composite prosthesis that could be employed in this clinical application. Full-thickness abdominal wall defects (7 × 5 cm) were created in 16 anaesthetized New Zealand white rabbits and the prosthesis were placed in direct contact with the visceral peritoneum during the experiment. The defects were repaired with a composite prosthesis or pure polypropylene mesh to establish two study groups (n = 8 each). The composite device was constituted by a polypropylene mesh physically attached to a poly(ether)urethane–polydimethylsiloxane laminar sheet. Animals were sacrificed 7, 14, 21 and 30 days after implant and prosthesis/surrounding tissue specimens subjected to light and electron microscopy. Firm adhesions were detected in the polypropylene implants, while they were not present in the composite implants. The excellent behaviour of the composite prosthesis shown in this study warrants further investigation on its use for the repair of abdominal wall defects when a prosthetic device needs to be placed in contact with the intestinal loops.
KeywordsPDMS Adhesion Formation Abdominal Wall Defect PDMS Layer Composite Mesh
The Authors wish to thank Mr. A. Manca (ANGIOLOGICA S.r.l., Pavia, Italy) for providing polypropylene meshes. Furthermore, many thanks are due to P. Celentano for the help in drawing up the manuscript.
- 5.J. M. BELLÓN, J. BUJÁN, L. CONTRERAS, A. CARRERA-SAN MARTIN and F. JURADO, J. Am. Coll. Surg. 183 (1996) 11Google Scholar
- 6.J. M. BELLÓN, J. BUJÁN, L. CONTRERAS, A. HERNANDO and F. JURADO, Surg. Res. 26 (1994) 46Google Scholar
- 10.T. OKOSHI, M. GODDARD, P. M. GALLETTI and G. SOLDANI, ASAIO Trans. 37 (1991) M480Google Scholar
- 11.J. PELLETIER, Agressologie 33 (1992) 105Google Scholar
- 15.J. MAJESKI, South. Med. J. 91 (1998) 496Google Scholar