Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Biologic meshes have unique physical properties as a result of manufacturing techniques such as decellularization, crosslinking, and sterilization. The purpose of this study is to directly compare the biocompatibility profiles of five different biologic meshes, AlloDerm® (non-crosslinked human dermal matrix), PeriGuard® (crosslinked bovine pericardium), Permacol® (crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), Strattice® (non-crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), and Veritas® (non-crosslinked bovine pericardium), using a porcine model of ventral hernia repair.

Methods

Full-thickness fascial defects were created in 20 Yucatan minipigs and repaired with the retromuscular placement of biologic mesh 3 weeks later. Animals were euthanized at 1 month and the repair sites were subjected to tensile testing and histologic analysis. Samples of unimplanted (de novo) meshes and native porcine abdominal wall were also analyzed for their mechanical properties.

Results

There were no significant differences in the biomechanical characteristics between any of the mesh-repaired sites at 1 month postimplantation or between the native porcine abdominal wall without implanted mesh and the mesh-repaired sites (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Histologically, non-crosslinked materials exhibited greater cellular infiltration, extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, and neovascularization compared to crosslinked meshes.

Conclusions

While crosslinking differentiates biologic meshes with regard to cellular infiltration, ECM deposition, scaffold degradation, and neovascularization, the integrity and strength of the repair site at 1 month is not significantly impacted by crosslinking or by the de novo strength/stiffness of the mesh.

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. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EGG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240(4):578–585

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J, Walsh RM, Rosenblatt S, Duperier F, Fanning A, Siperstein A (2003) Recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a five-year experience. Surg Endosc 17:123–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Maurice SM, Skeete DA (2009) Use of human acellular dermal matrix for abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg 197:35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaufman Z, Engelberg M, Zager M (1981) Fecal fistula: a late complication of Marlex mesh repair. Dis Colon Rectum 24(7):543–544

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133:378–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Schumpelick V (1999) Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 165:665–673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Diaz JJ Jr, Conquest AM, Ferzoco SJ, Vargo D, Miller P, Wu YC, Donahue R (2009) Multi-institutional experience using human acellular dermal matrix for ventral hernia repair in a compromised surgical field. Arch Surg 144(3):209–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Milburn ML, Holton LH, Chung TL, Li EN, Bochicchio GV, Goldberg NH, Silverman RP (2008) Acellular dermal matrix compared with synthetic implant material for repair of ventral hernia in the setting of peri-operative Staphylococcus aureus implant contamination: a rabbit model. Surg Infect 9(4):433–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carbonell AM, Matthews BD, Dréau D, Foster M, Austin CE, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2005) The susceptibility of prosthetic biomaterials to infection. Surg Endosc 19:430–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Petter-Puchner AH, Fortelny RH, Walder N, Mittermayr R, Ohlinger W, van Griensven M, Redl H (2008) Adverse effects associated with the use of porcine cross-linked collagen implants in an experimental model of incisional hernia repair. J Surg Res 145:105–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hiles M, Record Ritchie RD, Altizer AM (2009) Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair? A systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov 16:26–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Candage R, Jones K, Luchette FA, Sinacore JM, Vandevender D, Reed RL 2nd (2008) Use of human acellular dermal matrix for hernia repair: friend or foe? Surgery 144(4):703–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Franklin ME Jr, Gonzalez JJ Jr, Michaelson RP, Glass JL, Chock DA (2002) Preliminary experience with new bioactive prosthetic material for repair of hernias in infected fields. Hernia 6:171–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Duan X, Sheardown H (2005) Crosslinking of collagen with dendrimers. J Biomed Mater Res A 75(3):510–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Abhinav K, Shaaban M, Raymond T, Oke T, Gullan R, Montgomery ACV (2009) Primary reconstruction of pelvic floor defects following sacrectomy using Permacol graft. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:439–443

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hammond TM, Chin-Aleong J, Navsaria H, Williams NS (2008) Human in vivo cellular response to a cross-linked acellular collagen implant. Br J Surg 95:438–446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pierce LM, Rao A, Baumann SS, Glassberg JE, Kuehl TJ, Muir TW (2009) Long-term histologic response to synthetic and biologic graft materials implanted in the vagina and abdomen of a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:546.e1–546.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Committee on Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996) US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

  19. Jenkins ED, Melman L, Desai S, Brown SR, Frisella MM, Deeken CR, Matthews BD (2010) Evaluation of intraperitoneal placement of absorbable and nonabsorbable barrier coated mesh secured with fibrin sealant in a New Zealand white rabbit model. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print]

  20. Valentin JE, Badylak JS, McCabe GP, Badylak SF (2006) Extracellular matrix bioscaffolds for orthopaedic applications. A comparative histologic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:2673–2686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from Synovis Life Sciences, St. Paul, MN.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    L. Melman, E. D. Jenkins, N. A. Hamilton, L. C. Bender, C. R. Deeken, M. M. Frisella & B. D. Matthews

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    M. D. Brodt

  3. Division of Comparative Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    S. C. Greco

Authors
  1. L. Melman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. D. Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. A. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. C. Bender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. D. Brodt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. R. Deeken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. C. Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. M. Frisella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. B. D. Matthews
    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

Melman, L., Jenkins, E.D., Hamilton, N.A. et al. Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia 15, 157–164 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0770-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0770-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation