Hernia

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 69–76 | Cite as

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

Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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™.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Adhesion Tissue ingrowth Absorbable barrier mesh Permanent barrier mesh Ventral hernia 

References

  1. 1.
    Tingstedt B, Isaksson K, Andersson E, Andersson R (2007) Prevention of abdominal adhesions–present state and what’s beyond the horizon? Eur Surg Res 39:259–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolgen N, Vargel I, Korkusuz P, Menceloglu YZ, Piskin E (2007) In vivo performance of antibiotic embedded electrospun PCL membranes for prevention of abdominal adhesions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 81:530–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schnuriger B, Barmparas G, Branco BC, Lustenberger T, Inaba K, Demetriades D (2011) Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: a review of the literature. Am J Surg 201:111–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halm JA, de Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2007) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31:423–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schreinemacher MH, Emans PJ, Gijbels MJ, Greve JW, Beets GL, Bouvy ND (2009) Degradation of mesh coatings and intraperitoneal adhesion formation in an experimental model. Br J Surg 96:305–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Matthews BD, Mostafa G, Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, Austin C, Norton HJ, Heniford BT (2005) Evaluation of adhesion formation and host tissue response to intra-abdominal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh and composite prosthetic mesh. J Surg Res 123:227–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacob BP, Hogle NJ, Durak E, Kim T, Fowler DL (2007) Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus proceed versus Parietex composite. Surg Endosc 21:629–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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
  11. 11.
    Matthews BD, Mostafa G, Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, Austin C, Norton HJ, Heniford BT (2005) Evaluation of adhesion formation and host tissue response to intra-abdominal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh and composite prosthetic mesh. J Surg Res 123:227–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Pollinger HS, Backus CL, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114:126–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    AVMA Panel on Euthanasia (2001) 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. J Am Vet Assoc 218:668–696Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGinty JJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, Fowler DL (2005) A comparative study of adhesion formation and abdominal wall ingrowth after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in a porcine model using multiple types of mesh. Surg Endosc 19:786–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 14:599–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Section of Minimally Invasive SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations