Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of endoscopic and histological evaluations of two different types of mesh plug for a groin hernia model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The biological responses to mesh in vivo have been evaluated in some papers, but the in vivo condition of mesh and plugs have not been sufficiently evaluated. This study evaluated the endoscopic observations and histological assessments of mesh plugs using swine models.

Methods

An artificial abdominal hernia was established in the porcine abdomen, and repaired using three different sizes of two types of plug, Proloop (ATRIUM Medical Corporation, Hudson, NH, USA) or Perfix (BARD Medical Division, Covington, GA, USA). The in vivo conditions of each plug were periodically observed using a laparoscope. Moreover, a histological evaluation of the plugs was performed 3 months after implantation.

Results

The laparoscopic observation revealed that inversion of the plugs occurred in 10 out of 18 cases repaired with Perfix, while no case repaired with Proloop inverted. The large and medium sizes of Perfix plugs were inclined by an average of more than 30°. In addition, the triangular shape of Perfix plugs was broken and the vertical/horizontal ratio was enlarged during the observation period, while Proloop plugs shrank both vertically and horizontally. The inflammatory cell count was significantly lower within the Proloop plugs than within Perfix plugs.

Conclusion

Proloop plugs are apparently superior because they are stable even 3 months after implantation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Klosterhalfern B, Klinge U, Hermanns U, Schumpelick V. Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans. Chirurg 2000;71:43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen U, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 2002;103:208–214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schumpelick V, Klinge U, Welty G, Klosterhalfen B. Meshes in the abdominal wall. Chirurg 1999;70:876–887.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosch R, Junge K, Schachtrupp A, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V. Mesh implants in hernia repair. Inflammatory cell response in a rat model. Eur Surg Res 2003;35:161–166.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Gersin KS, Norton HJ, Kercher KW, et al. Prospective histologic evaluation of intraabdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 2007;21:1170–1174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 2009;13:343–403.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG, Small PK, Lammers B, Horeyseck G. Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2005;92:166–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tamme C, Garde N, Klingler A, Hampe C, Wunder R, Kockerling F. Totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty with titaniumcoated lightweight hernia mesh: early results. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1125–1129.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Kasperk R. Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene mesh. Hernia 2001;5:142–147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U. The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2005;2:103–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weyhe D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O, Grabs R, Muller K-M, Uhl W, et al. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: Less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 2006;30:1586–1591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldstein HS. Selecting the right mesh. Hernia 1999;1:23–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H. Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 2001;233(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Courtney CA, Duffy K, Serpell MG, O’Dwyer PJ. Outcome of patients with severe chronic pain following repair of groin hernia. Br J Surg 2002;89:1310–1314.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pélissier EP, Blum D, Damas JM, Marre P. The plug method in inguinal hernia: a prospective evaluation. Hernia 1999;4:201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, Ottinger AP, Klosterhalfen B. Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:129–136.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 2005;12:63–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Conze J, Limberg W, Obolenski B, Ottinger AP, et al. Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. Eur J Surg 1998;164:951–960.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schug-Pab C, Tamme C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A. A lightweight, partially absorbable mesh (Ultrapro) for endoscopic hernia repair: experimental biocompatibility results obtained with a porcine model. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1100–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cancer and Thoracic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan

    Yasuhiro Mandai, Minoru Naito, Tatsuro Hayashi, Hiroaki Asano, Hideo Ino, Kazunori Tsukuda & Shinichiro Miyoshi

Authors
  1. Yasuhiro Mandai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minoru Naito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tatsuro Hayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroaki Asano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hideo Ino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kazunori Tsukuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shinichiro Miyoshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mandai, Y., Naito, M., Hayashi, T. et al. Impact of endoscopic and histological evaluations of two different types of mesh plug for a groin hernia model. Surg Today 41, 1512–1518 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-010-4520-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-010-4520-9

Key words

Search

Navigation