Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of a novel macroporous polytetrafluoroethylene knit mesh compared to lightweight and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the biocompatibility of heavyweight polypropylene (HWPP), lightweight polypropylene (LWPP), and monofilament knit polytetrafluoroethylene (mkPTFE) mesh by comparing biomechanics and histologic response at 1, 3, and 5 months in a porcine model of incisional hernia repair.

Methods

Bilateral full-thickness abdominal wall defects measuring 4 cm in length were created in 27 Yucatan minipigs. Twenty-one days after hernia creation, animals underwent bilateral preperitoneal ventral hernia repair with 8 × 10 cm pieces of mesh. Repairs were randomized to Bard®Mesh (HWPP, Bard/Davol, http://www.davol.com), ULTRAPRO® (LWPP, Ethicon, http://www.ethicon.com), and GORE®INFINIT Mesh (mkPTFE, Gore & Associates, http://www.gore.com). Nine animals were sacrificed at each timepoint (1, 3, and 5 months). At harvest, a 3 × 4 cm sample of mesh and incorporated tissue was taken from the center of the implant site and subjected to uniaxial tensile testing at a rate of 0.42 mm/s. The maximum force (N) and tensile strength (N/cm) were measured with a tensiometer, and stiffness (N/mm) was calculated from the slope of the force-versus-displacement curve. Adjacent sections of tissue were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and analyzed for inflammation, fibrosis, and tissue ingrowth. Data are reported as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was determined using a two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-test.

Results

No significant difference in maximum force was detected between meshes at any of the time points (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). However, for each mesh type, the maximum strength at 5 months was significantly lower than that at 1 month (P < 0.05). No significant difference in stiffness was detected between the mesh types or between timepoints (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). No significant differences with regard to inflammation, fibrosis, or tissue ingrowth were detected between mesh types at any time point (P > 0.09 for all comparisons). However, over time, inflammation decreased significantly for all mesh types (P < 0.001) and tissue ingrowth reached a slight peak between 1 and 3 months (P = 0.001) but did not significantly change thereafter (P > 0.09).

Conclusions

The maximum tensile strength of mesh in the abdominal wall decreased over time for HWPP, LWPP, and mkPTFE mesh materials alike. This trend may actually reflect inability to adequately grip specimens at later time points rather than any mesh-specific trend. Histologically, inflammation decreased with time (P = 0.000), and tissue ingrowth increased (P = 0.019) for all meshes. No specific trends were observed between the polypropylene meshes and the monofilament knit PTFE, suggesting that this novel construction may be a suitable alternative to existing polypropylene meshes.

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 WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de L, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, Boelhouwer RU, de Vries BC, Salu MK, Wereldsma JC, Bruijninckx CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Park AE, Roth JS, Kavic SM (2006) Abdominal wall hernia. Curr Probl Surg 43:326–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. US Health and Human Services PHS (2010) The animal studies committee manual guidelines for the care and use of research animals. http://www.asc.wustl.edu/manual/index.html

  5. Jenkins ED, Melman L, Deeken CR, Greco SC, Frisella M, Matthews BD (2010) Evaluation of fenestrated and non-fenestrated biologic grafts in a porcine model of mature ventral incisional hernia repair. Hernia 14:599–610

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. ISO 10933-6/ASTM 981-99 (2003) Annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM

  7. 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 

  8. Usher FC, Ochsner J, Tuttle LJ (1958) Use of marlex mesh in the repair of incisional hernias. Am Surg 24:969–974

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellon JM, Rodriguez M, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Gomez-Gil V, Pascual G, Bujan J (2009) Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 89B:448–455

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bellon JM, Rodriguez M, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Gomez-Gil V, Pascual G, Bujan J (2008) Postimplant behavior of lightweight polypropylene meshes in an experimental model of abdominal hernia. J Invest Surg 21:280–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hollinsky C, Sandberg S, Koch T, Seidler S (2008) Biomechanical properties of lightweight versus heavyweight meshes for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and their impact on recurrence rates. Surg Endosc 22:2679–2685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Majercik S, Tsikitis V, Iannitti DA (2006) Strength of tissue attachment to mesh after ventral hernia repair with synthetic composite mesh in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 20:1671–1674

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Klinge U, Conze J, Limberg W, Brucker C, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1996) Pathophysiology of the abdominal wall. Chirurg 67:229–233

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Junge K, Klinge U, Prescher A, Giboni P, Niewiera M, Schumpelick V (2001) Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants. Hernia 5:113–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD, Carbonell AM, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 136:1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller 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 

  19. Luijendijk RW, de L, Wauters CC, Hop WC, Duron JJ, Pailler JL, Camprodon BR, Holmdahl L, van Geldorp HJ, Jeekel J (1996) Foreign material in postoperative adhesions. Ann Surg 223:242–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Duffy DM, di Zerega GS (1996) Adhesion controversies: pelvic pain as a cause of adhesions, crystalloids in preventing them. J Reprod Med 41:19–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Menzies D (1993) Postoperative adhesions: their treatment and relevance in clinical practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75:147–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Menzies D, Ellis H (1990) Intestinal obstruction from adhesions—how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72:60–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bageacu S, Blanc P, Breton C, Gonzales M, Porcheron J, Chabert M, Balique JG (2002) Laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia: a retrospective study of 159 patients. Surg Endosc 16:345–348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: 9 years’ experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238:391–399

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wassenaar EB, Schoenmaeckers EJ, Raymakers JT, Rakic S (2009) Recurrences after laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernia: lessons learned from 505 repairs. Surg Endosc 23:825–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 164:965–969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Kockerling F (2004) In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc 18:211–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a research grant from W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., (Flagstaff, AZ).

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, 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. Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of a novel macroporous polytetrafluoroethylene knit mesh compared to lightweight and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. Hernia 15, 423–431 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0787-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0787-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation