Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Which mesh is appropriate for laparoscopic use? Prevention of adhesions to macroporous mesh, a rabbit model

  • Original Scientific Paper
  • Published:
European Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Background

Laparoscopic hernioplasty is the method of choice for the repair of certain types of incisional and ventral hernias; however, complications from intraperitoneally implanted inappropriate meshes can be life threatening. On the other hand, the appropriate meshes are costly and that limit their routine use. The aim of these experiments was to create a simple mesh which generates adhesions in the abdominal wall but prevents adhesion formations intra-abdominally.

Methods

The behaviour of different materials covering routinely used macroporous meshes were investigated in a rabbit model (n = 48) in which two disks of meshes were implanted in the abdominal wall in a way that the covered side faced the abdominal cavity. Depending on the mesh and the material covering it, the rabbits were divided into four groups of 12. The animals from each group were studied at 30, 60, 90 and 120 days to determine the presence and degree of adhesion formation macroscopically.

Results

Non-coated polypropylene mesh caused massive adhesions, but coating with silicone-layer adhesion formation was highly decreased.

Conclusions

Intraperitoneal implantation of silicon impregnated low-weight polypropylene mesh decreased the incidence of adhesions. Use of silicone-covered mesh may provide a cheap alternative means for laparoscopic hernia repair.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mudge M, Hughes LE. Incisional hernia: a 10 year prospective study of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg. 1985;72:70–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sugerman HJ, Kellum JM Jr., Reines HD, et al. Greater risk of incisional hernia with morbidly obese than steroid-dependent patients and low recurrence with prefascial polypropylene mesh. Am J Surg. 1996;171:80–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Read RC, Yoder G. Recent trends in the management of incisional herniation. Arch Surg. 1989;124:485–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Manninen MJ, Lavonius M, Perhoniemi VJ. Results of incisional hernia repair: a retrospective study of 172 unselected hernioplasties. Eur J Surg. 1991;157:29–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, van den Tol P, et al. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:392–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Paul A, Korenkov M, Peters S, et al. Unacceptable results of the Mayo procedure for repair of abdominal incisional hernias. Eur J Surg. 1998;164:361–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Anthony T, Bergen PC, Kim LT, et al. Factors affecting recurrence following incisional herniorrhaphy. World J Surg. 2000;24:95–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg. 1998;133:378–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):578–83; discussion 583–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baracs J, Takacs I, Horvarth S, Horváth Örs P, Weber G. Higher recurrence rate at sublay than onlay mesh reconstruction in abdominal hernias: five-years results of a randomised, multicentric clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2009;96(S5):8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003:CD001785.

  12. Wéber G, Baracs J, Horváth OP. “Onlay” mesh provides significantly better results than “sublay” reconstruction. Prospective randomized multicenter study of abdominal wall reconstruction with sutures only, or with surgical mesh—results of a five-years follow-up. Magy Seb. 2010;63(5):302–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Adetayo OA, Salcedo SE, Bahjri K, Gupta SC. A meta-analysis of outcomes using acellular dermal matrix in breast and abdominal wall reconstructions: event rates and risk factors predictive of complications. Ann Plast Surg. 2011. Epub ahead of print.

  14. Liu F, Li J. Repair of large abdominal wall defects using the Proceed™ surgical mesh with open intra-peritonium onlay method. Saudi Med J. 2011;32(5):504–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghazi B, Deigni O, Yezhelyev M, Losken A. Current options in the management of complex abdominal wall defects. Ann Plast Surg. 2011 May;66(5):488–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE. The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature and clinical experience. J Am Cool Surg. 1998;186:352–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Novotný T, Jeřábek J, Veselý K, Staffa R, Dvořák M, Cagaš J. Evaluation of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene mesh placed intraperitoneally in a New Zealand white rabbit model. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(7):1884–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Raptis DA, Vichova B, Breza J, Skipworth J, Barker S. A comparison of woven versus nonwoven polypropylene (PP) and expanded versus condensed polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) on their intraperitoneal incorporation and adhesion formation. J Surg Res. 2011;169(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Franz MG. The biology of hernia formation. Hernia. 2006;10(6):462–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Carbajo MA, Martin del Olmo JC, Blanco JI, et al Laparoscopic treatment vs open surgery in the solution of major incisional and abdominal wall hernias with mesh. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:250–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Heniford BT, Ramshaw BJ. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair—a report of 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:419–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Junge K, Klinge U, Prescher A, Giboni P, Niewiera M, Schumpelick V. Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants. Hernia. 2001;5(3):113–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lynen Jansen P, Mertens PR, Klinge U, Schumpelick V. The biology of hernia formation. Surgery. 2004;136(1):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bellón JM, Garcia-Carranza A, Jurado F, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martin A, Buján J. Peritoneal regeneration after implant of a composite prosthesis in the abdominal wall. World J Surg. 2001;25:147–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dinsmore RC, Calton WC. Prevention of adhesions to polypropylene mesh in a rabbit model. Am Surg. 1999;65:383–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. van’t Riet M, de Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Bonthuis F, Marquet RL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ. Prevention of adhesion to prostetic mesh comparison of different barriers using an incisional hernia model. Ann Surg. 2003;237:123–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nagy J. Production and medical use of biocompatible materials. (Biokompatibilis anyagok orvostechnikai alkalmazása és előállításuk.—Original book in Hungarian) 2011.

  28. Shintani H, Nakamura A. Analysis of a carcinogen, 4,4′-methylenedianiline, from thermosetting polyurethane during sterilization. J Anal Toxicol. 1989;13(6):354–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Takács I, Horváth S, Balatonyi B, Jávor S, Molnár A, Gáspár S, Hajós R, Meczker A, Lantos J, Roth E, Wéber G. Tissue integration of various silicone-coated polypropylene surgical mesh. Magy Seb. 2010;63(5):340–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, University of Pécs, 2. Rakoczi u., 7623, Pecs, Hungary

    J. Baracs MD, S. G. Sajjadi MD & O. P. Horvath MD

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Research and Techniques, University of Pécs, 2. Rakoczi u., 7623, Pecs, Hungary

    I. Takacs MD & G. Weber MD

Authors
  1. J. Baracs MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Takacs MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. G. Sajjadi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. P. Horvath MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Weber MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Baracs MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baracs, J., Takacs, I., Sajjadi, S. et al. Which mesh is appropriate for laparoscopic use? Prevention of adhesions to macroporous mesh, a rabbit model. Eur Surg 44, 319–324 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-012-0154-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-012-0154-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation