Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adhesion formation of a polyvinylidenfluoride/polypropylene mesh for intra-abdominal placement in a rodent animal model

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Effective laparoscopic ventral herniorrhaphy mandates the use of an intraperitoneal mesh. Visceral adhesions and shrinkage of prosthetics may complicate repairs. The aim of this study was to compare adhesion formation, mesh shrinkage and tissue ingrowth after intra-abdominal placement of a novel two-component monofilament mesh structure made of polypropylene (PP) and polyvinylidenfluoride (PVDF) with current alternatives.

Materials and methods

Forty Sprague-Dawley rats were used in this study. Mesh samples were fixed as intra-abdominal only mesh at the right lateral abdominal wall. The study groups were: PVDF+PP (polypropylene parietally and polyvinylidenfluoride viscerally), PP+Col (polypropylene with a collagenoxidized film), ePTFE (smooth surface viscerally and a textured surface parietally), and PP (a pure polypropylene mesh serving as control). The meshes were explanted after 30 days. Adhesions were scored as a percentage of explanted biomaterials’ affected surface area; prosthetic shrinkage was calculated. Foreign-body reaction to mesh materials was measured by investigating the amount of inflammatory infiltrate and fibrotic tissue formation.

Results

In terms of adhesion score, the pure PP mesh showed the highest values followed by the ePTFE, PVDF+PP, and PP+Col meshes. Quantitative assessment of adhesion area revealed a significantly higher value of the pure PP mesh sample (62.0 ± 22.1%) compared with the PP+Col (26.8 ± 12.1%) and the PVDF+PP mesh (34.6 ± 8.2%). Percentage of shrinkage showed a significantly higher value of the ePTFE mesh (52.4 ± 13.9%) compared with all other mesh modifications (PP+Col 19.8 ± 13.9%, PVDF+PP 19.9 ± 7.0%, and PP 26.8 ± 9.5%). Inflammatory infiltrate was significantly reduced in the PVDF+PP mesh group compared with all other mesh samples.

Conclusion

The use of the novel two-component monofilament mesh structure made of polypropylene and polyvinylidenfluoride was found to be favorable regarding adhesion formation and mesh shrinkage compared to conventional mesh materials used for intra-abdominal placement.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rudmik LR, Schieman C, Dixon E, Debru E (2006) Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a review of the literature. Hernia 10(2):110–119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fourtanier G, Muscari F, Duffas JP, Suc B (2006) Laparocopic repair of incisional hernias: a gold standard? Ann Chir 131(4):233–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K (2003) Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet 362:1561–1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. LeBlanc K (2001) Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernia. Surg Endosc 15(10):1242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. LeBlanc KA (2005) Incisional hernia repair: laparoscopic techniques. World J Surg 29(8):1073–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Cristiano JA, Paton BL, Norton HJ, Peindl RD et al (2007) Comparative evaluation of adhesion formation, strength of ingrowth, and textile properties of prosthetic meshes after long-term intra-abdominal implantation in a rabbit. J Surg Res 140(1):6–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacob BP, Hogle NJ, Durak E, Kim T, Fowler DL (2007) Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus Proceed versus Parietex Composite. Surg Endosc 21(4):629–633

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Urban E, King MW, Guidoin R, Laroche G, Marois Y, Martin L et al (1994) Why make monofilament sutures out of polyvinylidene fluoride? ASAIO J 40(2):145–156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Ottinger AP, Junge K, Schumpelick V (2002) PVDF as a new polymer for the construction of surgical meshes. Biomaterials 23(16):3487–3493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. The Surgical Membrane Study Group (1992) Prophylaxis of pelvic sidewall adhesions with Gore-Tex surgical membrane: a multicenter clinical investigation. Fertil Steril 57(4):921–923

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eriksen JR, Gogenur I, Rosenberg J (2007) Choice of mesh for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 11(6):481–492

    Google Scholar 

  12. McGinty JJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, Fowler DL (2005) A comparative study of adhesion formation and abdominal wall ingrowth after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in a porcine model using multiple types of mesh. Surg Endosc 19(6):786–790

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schug-Pass C, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Kockerling F (2006) A lightweight polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) for laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall hernias: comparison of biocompatibility with the DualMesh in an experimental study using the porcine model. Surg Endosc 20(3):402–409

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer T, Ladurner R, Gangkofer A, Mussack T, Reiser M, Lienemann A (2007) Functional cine MRI of the abdomen for the assessment of implanted synthetic mesh in patients after incisional hernia repair: initial results. Eur Radiol 17(12):3123–3129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mussack T, Fischer T, Ladurner R, Gangkofer A, Bensler S, Hallfeldt KK et al (2005) Cine magnetic resonance imaging vs high-resolution ultrasonography for detection of adhesions after laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair: a matched pair pilot analysis. Surg Endosc 19(12):1538–1543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Urban E, King MW, Guidoin R, Laroche G, Marois Y, Martin L et al (1994) Why make monofilament sutures out of polyvinylidene fluoride? Asaio J 40(2):145–156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Laroche G, Marois Y, Guidoin R, King MW, Martin L, How T et al (1995) Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as a biomaterial: from polymeric raw material to monofilament vascular suture. J Biomed Mater Res 29(12):1525–1536

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bellon JM, Garcia-Carranza A, Jurado F, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martin A, Bujan J (2001) Peritoneal regeneration after implant of a composite prosthesis in the abdominal wall. World J Surg 25(2):147–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Conze J, Rosch R, Klinge U, Weiss C, Anurov M, Titkowa S et al (2004) Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: influence of pore size and surface area. Hernia 8(4):365–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Burger JW, Halm JA, Wijsmuller AR, ten Raa S, Jeekel J (2006) Evaluation of new prosthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 20(8):1320–1325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson EK, Hoyt CH, Dinsmore RC (2004) Abdominal wall hernia repair: a long-term comparison of Sepramesh and Dualmesh in a rabbit hernia model. Am Surg 70(8):657–661

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Peindl RD, Cobb WS, Austin CE, Cristiano JA et al (2006) Prospective evaluation of adhesion formation and shrinkage of intra-abdominal prosthetics in a rabbit model. Am Surg 72(9):808–813

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Conze J, Krones CJ, Schumpelick V, Klinge U (2007) Incisional hernia: challenge of re-operations after mesh repair. Langenbecks Arch Surg 392(4):453–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1998) Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 164(12):965–969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52057, Aachen, Germany

    Karsten Junge, Marcel Binnebösel, Raphael Rosch, Marc Jansen, Daniel Kämmer, Jens Otto, Volker Schumpelick & Uwe Klinge

  2. German Centre of Excellence for Biomaterial and Implant Pathology, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Karsten Junge, Raphael Rosch & Uwe Klinge

  3. Helmholtz Institute of Applied Medical Engineering, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Uwe Klinge

Authors
  1. Karsten Junge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcel Binnebösel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raphael Rosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Kämmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jens Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Volker Schumpelick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Uwe Klinge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Junge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Junge, K., Binnebösel, M., Rosch, R. et al. Adhesion formation of a polyvinylidenfluoride/polypropylene mesh for intra-abdominal placement in a rodent animal model. Surg Endosc 23, 327–333 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9923-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9923-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation