Comparison of contracture, adhesion, tissue ingrowth, and histologic response characteristics of permanent and absorbable barrier meshes in a porcine model of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair
- 545 Downloads
The objective of this study was to determine the mesh contracture, adhesion, tissue ingrowth, and histologic characteristics of a novel absorbable barrier mesh (Ventrio™ ST Hernia Patch) compared to existing permanent (Ventrio™ Hernia Patch) and absorbable barrier meshes (Sepramesh™ IP Composite and PROCEED™ Surgical Mesh).
Standard laparoscopic technique was utilized to bilaterally implant meshes in 20 female Yorkshire pigs (n = 5 pigs/group). Meshes were fixated to the intact peritoneum with SorbaFix™ absorbable fixation devices. Mesh contracture, adhesion coverage, and adhesion tenacity were evaluated after 4 weeks. T-Peel testing and hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining were utilized to assess tissue ingrowth and host response.
A significantly greater percent area contracture was demonstrated for PROCEED™ (26.9%) compared to Ventrio™ ST (8.8%), Ventrio™ (14.5%) and Sepramesh™ (9.2%). Ventrio™ ST demonstrated similar adhesion area, tenacity, and tissue ingrowth compared to all other meshes. Histological scoring revealed a comparable host inflammatory response for all meshes, with a few exceptions. A greater number of giant cells were observed in Ventrio™ ST and Sepramesh™ near the multifilament polyglycolic acid (PGA) fibers; a greater number of macrophages were observed in PROCEED™ compared to Ventrio™; and a greater number of neutrophils were observed in PROCEED™, compared to Sepramesh™ (P < 0.05). Focal areas of hemorrhage were also observed on the visceral surface of PROCEED™.
Ventrio™ ST Hernia Patch demonstrated comparable contracture, adhesion, tissue ingrowth, and histologic characteristics compared to existing permanent and absorbable barrier meshes. Host inflammatory and fibrotic responses for all four meshes were minimal and representative of a biocompatible response.
KeywordsAdhesion Tissue ingrowth Absorbable barrier mesh Permanent barrier mesh Ventral hernia
- 6.Pierce RA, Perrone J, Nimeri A, Sexton J, Walcutt J, Frisella M, Matthews B (2009) 120-Day comparative analysis of adhesion grade and quantity, mesh contraction, and tissue response to a novel omega-3 fatty acid bioabsorbable barrier macroporous mesh after intraperitoneal placement. Surg Innov 16:46–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Cristiano JA, Paton BL, Norton HJ, Peindl RD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (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 140:6–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.van’t RM, De Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Bonthuis F, Marquet RL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2002) Prevention of adhesion to prosthetic mesh: comparison of different barriers using an incisional hernia model. Ann Surg 237:123–128Google Scholar
- 13.AVMA Panel on Euthanasia (2001) 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. J Am Vet Assoc 218:668–696Google Scholar