Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of adhesion formation, mesh fixation strength, and hydroxyproline content after intraabdominal placement of polytetrafluoroethylene mesh secured using titanium spiral tacks, nitinol anchors, and polypropylene suture or polyglactin 910 suture

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study is to evaluate fixation methods for polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) mesh with an in vivo model of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

Methods

In 40 New Zealand white rabbits, a 4 × 4-cm ePTFE mesh (n = 80, two per animal) was attached to an intact peritoneum with polyglactin 910 (PG 910) (n = 20) or polypropylene (PP) (n = 20) suture, titanium spiral tacks (TS) (n = 20), or nitinol anchors (NA) (n = 20). Mesh was harvested at 8 and 16 weeks for fixation strength testing, adhesion assessment, and collagen (hydroxyproline) content. Fixation strength on day 0 was determined with mesh attached to harvested abdominal wall. Statistical significance was determined as p < 0.05.

Results

There was no difference in fixation strength between PP (39.1 N) and PG 910 (40.0 N) sutures at time zero. At week 8, PP (25.7 N) was significantly stronger (p < 0.05) than PG 910 (11.4 N) suture, but not at week 16. The fixation strength of TS and NA (day 0, 15.4 vs 7.4 N; week 8, 17.5 vs 15.3 N; week 16, 19.1 vs 13.8 N) was not significantly different. Fixation with PP suture was significantly (p < 0.05) stronger than that with TS and NA at day 0 (39.1, 15.4, and 7.4 N, respectively) but not at weeks 8 or 16. The fixation strength of suture decreased significantly (p < 0.05) from day 0 to week 16 (PP: day 0 = 39.1 N, week 8 = 25.7 N, week 16 = 21.4 N; PG 910: day 0 = 40.0 N, week 8 = 11.4 N, week 16 = 12.8 N). The fixation strength of NA and TS did not change significantly (NA: day 0 = 7.4 N, week 8 = 15.3 N, week 16 = 13.8 N; TS: week 0 = 15.4 N, week 8 = 17.5 N, week 16 = 19.1 N). There were no differences in adhesion area based on fixation device used; however, there were more (p < 0.05) mesh samples using NA with adhesions compared to TS and adhesion tenacity was greater (p < 0.05) compared to that of TS, PP, and PG. Hydroxyproline content at weeks 8 and 16 was similar for all fixation devices.

Conclusions

The initial fixation strength for nonabsorbable suture is significantly greater than that of the metallic fixation devices, but after 8 weeks there is no difference. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair without transabdominal suture fixation may be predisposed to acute failure. The metallic devices have similar fixation strength, although the incidence of adhesions and tenacity of adhesions appear to be greater with the nitinol anchors. Since these devices have similar fixation strengths and most likely provide adequate supplementation to transabdominal sutures for mesh fixation after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, their use should be based on other factors, such as their propensity for adhesions, ease of application, and cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MA Carbajo JC Martin Olmo Particledel JI Blanco (1999) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic treatment vs open surgery in the solution of major incisional and abdominal wall hernias with mesh Surg Endosc 13 250–252 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900956 Occurrence Handle10064757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. AM Carbonell KL Harold AJ Mahmutovic R Hassan BD Matthews KW Kercher RF Sing BT Heniford (2003) ArticleTitleLocal injection for the treatment of suture site pain after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair Am Surg 69 688–691 Occurrence Handle12953827

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. InstitutionalAuthorNameCommittee on Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996) Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, National Institute of Health Bethesda, MD

    Google Scholar 

  4. CL Garrard RH Clements L Nanney JM Davidson WO Richards (1999) ArticleTitleAdhesion formation is reduced after laparoscopic surgery Surg Endosc 13 10–13 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900887 Occurrence Handle9869679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. BT Heniford A Park BJ Ramshaw G Voeller (2003) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine year’s experience with 850 consecutive hernias Ann Surg 238 391–399 Occurrence Handle14501505

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. C Karokousis C Volpe J Tanski (1995) ArticleTitleUse of a mesh for musculoaponeurotic effects of the abdominal wall in cancer surgery and the risk of bowel fistulas J Am Coll Surg 181 11–16 Occurrence Handle7599765

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. N Katkhouda E Mavor (2001) ArticleTitleUse of fibrin sealant for mesh fixation in laparoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair Ann Surg 233 1–11 Occurrence Handle11141218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Z Kaufman M Engelberg M Zager (1981) ArticleTitleFecal fistula: a late complication of Marlex mesh repair Dis Colon Rectum 24 543–544 Occurrence Handle7028427

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. M Van’t Riet PJ Vos Steenwijk Particlede van GJ Kleinrensink EW Steyerberg HJ Bonjer (2002) ArticleTitleTensile strength of mesh fixation methods in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair Surg Endosc 16 1713–1716 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-001-9202-7 Occurrence Handle12098028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. ER Winslow S Diaz K Desai T Meininger NJ Soper ME Klingensmith (2004) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic incisional hernia repair in a porcine model: what do transfixation sutures add? Surg Endosc 17 .

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was funded by a grant from the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA

    C. S. Joels, K. W. Kercher, C. Austin, H. J. Norton, T. C. Williams & B. T. Heniford

  2. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box #8109, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    B. D. Matthews

Authors
  1. C. S. Joels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. D. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. W. Kercher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Austin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. J. Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T. C. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. T. Heniford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. D. Matthews.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joels, C.S., Matthews, B.D., Kercher, K.W. et al. Evaluation of adhesion formation, mesh fixation strength, and hydroxyproline content after intraabdominal placement of polytetrafluoroethylene mesh secured using titanium spiral tacks, nitinol anchors, and polypropylene suture or polyglactin 910 suture. Surg Endosc 19, 780–785 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8927-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8927-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation