Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental comparison of abdominal wall repair using different methods of enhancement by small intestinal submucosa graft

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To assess the biomechanical properties of full-thickness abdominal wall defects, either using Native tissues, with or without Overlay, and by substitution of the Defect by small intestinal submucosa mesh.

Methods

Seventy-two rats were divided into three groups according to repair method (Native, Overlay or Defect). At 7, 14, 30, and 90 days, six rats were sacrificed to measure tensile strength, collagen ingrowth, and host response.

Results

Explants had comparable strength at 30 days, the majority rupturing at the interface. Afterwards, the Native group was more resistant than both small intestine submucosa (SIS) groups with a more organized fibrotic scar on histology at 90 days.

Conclusions

SIS augmentation of native tissue repair does not increase strength. Replacement of abdominal wall by SIS is equally strong when compared to the SIS-augmented group; however, materials preferably rupture at the site of the implant itself.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birch C, Fynes MM (2002) The role of synthetic and biological prostheses in reconstructive pelvic floor surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14:527–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Ridder D (2008) Should we use meshes in the management of vaginal prolapse. Curr Opin Urol 18:377–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Winters JC (2006) InteXen tissue processing and laboratory study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17 Suppl 1:S34–S38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Badylak SF (2004) Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Transpl Immunol 12:367–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwandner O, Stadler F, Dietl O, Wirsching RP, Fuerst A (2008) Initial experience on efficacy in closure of cryptoglandular and Crohn’s transsphincteric fistulas by the use of the anal fistula plug. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:319–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Badylak SF, Coffey AC, Lantz GC, Tacker WA, Geddes LA (1994) Comparison of the resistance to infection of intestinal submucosa arterial autografts versus polytetrafluoroethylene arterial prostheses in a dog model. J Vasc Surg 19:465–472

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Helton WS, Fisichella PM, Berger R, Horgan S, Espat NJ, Abcarian H (2005) Short-term outcomes with small intestinal submucosa for ventral abdominal hernia. Arch Surg 140:549–560 (discussion, 560–562)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones JS, Rackley RR, Berglund R, Abdelmalak JB, DeOrco G, Vasavada SP (2005) Porcine small intestinal submucosa as a percutaneous mid-urethral sling: 2-year results. BJU Int 96:103–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chaliha C, Khalid U, Campagna L, Digesu GA, Ajay B, Khullar V (2006) SIS graft for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair–a case-controlled study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:492–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alponat A, Lakshminarasappa SR, Yavuz N, Goh PM (1997) Prevention of adhesions by Seprafilm, an absorbable adhesion barrier: an incisional hernia model in rats. Am Surg 63:818–819

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Claerhout F, Verbist G, Verbeken E, Konstantinovic M, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2008) Fate of collagen-based implants used in pelvic floor surgery: a 2-year follow-up study in a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(94):e1–e6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Konstantinovic ML, Lagae P, Zheng F, Verbeken EK, De Ridder D, Deprest JA (2005) Comparison of host response to polypropylene and non-cross-linked porcine small intestine serosal-derived collagen implants in a rat model. Bjog 112:1554–1560

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weber AM, Buchsbaum GM, Chen B et al (2004) Basic science and translational research in female pelvic floor disorders: proceedings of an NIH-sponsored meeting. Neurourol Urodyn 23:288–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Deprest J, Zheng F, Konstantinovic M et al (2006) The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:16–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2008) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn 27:3–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Toosie K, Gallego K, Stabile BE, Schaber B, French S, de Virgilio C (2000) Fibrin glue reduces intra-abdominal adhesions to synthetic mesh in a rat ventral hernia model. Am Surg 66:41–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Simmons-Byrd A, Morff R (2002) Morphologic study of small intestinal submucosa as a body wall repair device. J Surg Res 103:190–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Konstantinovic ML, Pille E, Malinowska M, Verbeken E, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2006) Tensile strength and host response towards different polypropylene implant materials used for augmentation of fascial repair in a rat model. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:619–626

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Movat HZ (1955) Demonstration of all connective tissue elements in a single section; pentachrome stains. AMA Arch Pathol 60:289–295

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zheng F, Lin Y, Verbeken E et al (2004) Host response after reconstruction of abdominal wall defects with porcine dermal collagen in a rat model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1961–1970

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zheng F, Verbeken E, de Ridder D, Deprest J (2005) Improved surgical outcome by modification of porcine dermal collagen implant in abdominal wall reconstruction in rats. Neurourol Urodyn 24:362–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Spelzini F, Konstantinovic ML, Guelinckx I et al (2006) Tensile strength and host response towards silk and type I polypropylene implants used for augmentation of fascial repair in a rat model. Gynecol Obstet Invest 63:155–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Damoiseaux JG, Dopp EA, Calame W, Chao D, MacPherson GG, Dijkstra CD (1994) Rat macrophage lysosomal membrane antigen recognized by monoclonal antibody ED1. Immunology 83:140–147

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ko R, Kazacos EA, Snyder S, Ernst DM, Lantz GC (2006) Tensile strength comparison of small intestinal submucosa body wall repair. J Surg Res 135:9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Clarke KM, Lantz GC, Salisbury SK, Badylak SF, Hiles MC, Voytik SL (1996) Intestine submucosa and polypropylene mesh for abdominal wall repair in dogs. J Surg Res 60:107–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Whitson B (2001) Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res 99:282–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Badylak SF (2007) The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. Biomaterials 28:3587–3593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hilger WS, Walter A, Zobitz ME, Leslie KO, Magtibay P, Cornella J (2006) Histological and biomechanical evaluation of implanted graft materials in a rabbit vaginal and abdominal model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1826–1831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stone HH, Fabian TC, Turkleson ML, Jurkiewicz MJ (1981) Management of acute full-thickness losses of the abdominal wall. Ann Surg 193:612–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Minderbroedersstraat 17, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Yves Ozog, Maja L. Konstantinovic, Sofie Verschueren, Federico Spelzini & Jan Deprest

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital “Gasthuisberg” Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Jan Deprest

  3. Department of Urology, University Hospital “Gasthuisberg” Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Dirk De Ridder

Authors
  1. Yves Ozog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maja L. Konstantinovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sofie Verschueren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federico Spelzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dirk De Ridder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jan Deprest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Deprest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ozog, Y., Konstantinovic, M.L., Verschueren, S. et al. Experimental comparison of abdominal wall repair using different methods of enhancement by small intestinal submucosa graft. Int Urogynecol J 20, 435–441 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0793-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0793-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation