Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 14, Issue 10, pp 960–963 | Cite as

Peritoneal adhesions to prosthetic materials

Choice of mesh for incisional hernia repair
  • W. W. Vrijland
  • F. Bonthuis
  • E. W. Steyerberg
  • R. L. Marquet
  • J. Jeekel
  • H. J. Bonjer
Original Articles

Abstract

Background

In many cases, incisional hernia repair requires the use of prosthetic materials. The aim of this experimental study in a rat model was to assess the role of polyglactin 910 mesh and fluoropassivated polyester mesh in preventing the formation of adhesions.

Methods

In the first experiment, the formation of peritoneal adhesions was assessed after insertion of polypropylene, polypropylene combined with polyglactin 910, or no mesh. In the second experiment, adhesion formations were compared after insertion of fluoropassivated polyester, polypropylene, and no mesh.

Results

The first experiment showed no significant difference in adhesion formations between the polypropylene mesh and the combined mesh; however, when no mesh was used, there were significantly fewer adhesions in both experiments (p<0.01). The second experiment showed a significantly lower degree of adhesions and a lower Adhesion Index after insertion of fluoropassivated polyester mesh than when polypropylene mesh was used (p=0.04).

Conclusions

Adding polyglactin 910 mesh to polypropylene mesh to prevent the formation of adhesions is not an effective measure. Fluoropassivated polyester meshes appear to provide a better alternative to the use of polypropylene meshes for incisional hernia repair in humans in terms of the formation of adhesions.

Key words

Adhesions Prosthetic materials Mesh Rat Incisional hernia Hernia repair 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    George CD, Ellis H (1986) The results of incisional hernia repair: a twelve-year review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 68: 185–187PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hesselink VJ, Luijendijk RW, de Wilt JH, Heide R, Jeekel J (1993) An evaluation of risk factors in incisional hernia recurrence. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176: 228–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jenkins SD, Klamer TW, Parteka JJ, Condon RE (1983) A comparison of prosthetic materials used to repair abdominal wall defects. Surgery 94: 392–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelso K, Blackett B (1977) Bacterial adherence to Prolene (Ethicon), Fluorosoft and Fluoromesh (Sulzer Vascutek). A product-comparison study on file at Sulzer Vascutek.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Langer S, Christiansen J (1985) Long-term results after incisional hernia repair. Acta Chir Scand 151: 217–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133: 378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manninen MJ, Lavonius M, Perhoniemi VJ (1991) Results of incisional hernia repair; a retrospective study of 172 unselected hernioplasties. Eur J Surg 157: 29–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Molloy RG, Moran KT, Waldron RP, Brady MP, Kirwan WO (1991) Massive incisional hernia: abdominal wall replacement with Marlex® mesh. Br J Surg 78: 242–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mudge M, Hughes LE (1985) Incisional hernia: a 10-year prospective study of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg 72: 70–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soares BM, Guidoin RG, Marois Y, Martin L, King MW, Laroche G, Zhang Z, Charara J, Girard JF (1996) In vivo characterisation of a fluoropassivated gelatin-impregnated polyester mesh for incisional hernia repair. J Biomed Mat Res 32: 293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thompson JN, Whawell SA (1965) Pathogenesis and prevention of adhesion formation. Br J Surg 52: 471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turkcapar AG, Yerdel MA, Aydinuraz K, Bayar S, Kuterdem E (1998) Repair of midline incisional hernias using polypropylene grafts. Surg Today 28: 59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van den Tol MP, Van Stijn I, Bonthuis F, Marquet RL, Jeekel J (1997) Reduction of intraperitoneal adhesion formation by use of nonabrasive gauze. Br J Surg 84: 1410–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zühlke HV, Lorenz EMP, Straub EM, Savvas V (1990) Pathophysiologie und Klassifikation von Adhäsionen. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir 345: 1009–1016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. W. Vrijland
    • 1
  • F. Bonthuis
    • 2
  • E. W. Steyerberg
    • 3
  • R. L. Marquet
    • 1
  • J. Jeekel
    • 1
  • H. J. Bonjer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Laboratory for Experimental SurgeryErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations