Comparison of Surgisis, Vypro II and TiMesh in contaminated and clean field
- 58 Downloads
The study aimed to evaluate the histologic properties and infection resistance of three different mesh materials in a rat model.
Each mesh, in both infectious (n = 96) and non-infectious groups (n = 270), was positioned both in sublay (preperitoneally) and onlay (subcutaneously) locations. Properties of the biological (Surgisis; Cook Surgical), composite, partially resorbing (Vypro II mesh; Ethicon) and non-resorbing (TiMesh; GFE Medizintechnik GmbH) mesh were evaluated and compared. Animals were killed at 7, 21 and 90 days after implantation. The following parameters were evaluated to assess the host response to the mesh material: inflammation, vascularization, fibrosis, collagen formation, Ki67, and a foreign body reaction by granuloma formation (FBG).
Surgisis mesh produced more pronounced inflammation and cell proliferation, and less intense granuloma formation, as well as fibrosis, compared to the other two groups. When the infected materials were examined, we found signs of local infection to be more often present in Surgisis group of animals.
In the presence of bacterial contamination, no benefits were observed in the use of the Surgisis prosthesis over the use of TiMesh and Vypro II.
KeywordsHernia Rat model Infection Surgisis TiMesh Vypro II
JCF designed the study and wrote the manuscript. DV designed the study and performed the experiments. NF performed the literature search and prepared data for analysis. TO performed the literature search and did the data analysis. ZM assisted in the experimental part and drafted the manuscript. BM performed the literature search and prepared data for analysis. IK drafted and revised the manuscript. PH did the statistical analysis and revised the manuscript with important intellectual content added. AM revised the manuscript and contributed important intellectual content. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All the authors declare no conflict of interest.
The study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki.
For this study informed consent is not required.
- 3.Cozad MJ, Grant DA, Bachman SL et al (2010) Materials characterization of explanted polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene composites: spectral and thermal analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 94:455–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31675 Google Scholar
- 6.Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583Google Scholar
- 9.Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: 9 years’ experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238:391–400. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000086662.49499.ab Google Scholar
- 12.Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Ploeg RJ, Busscher HJ (2007) The phenomenon of infection with abdominal wall reconstruction. Biomaterials 28:2314–2327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.01.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Horstmann R, Hellwig M, Classen C et al (2006) Impact of polypropylene amount on functional outcome and quality of life after inguinal hernia repair by the TAPP procedure using pure, mixed, and titanium-coated meshes. World J Surg 30:1742–1749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0242-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar