Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A lightweight polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) for laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall hernias

Comparison of biocompatibility with the DualMesh in an experimental study using the porcine model

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Despite numerous experimental studies, conducted most often with the open small-animal model, the ideal structure for a mesh with maximum biocompatibility in the intraabdominal region has yet to be found. To date, few experimental models have been concerned with the laparoscopic intraabdominal implantation of meshes. Numerous experimental and clinical studies appear to have identified expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), in the form of DualMesh, as the gold standard. Since publications have reported fistula formation and marked adhesions to be associated with the use of polypropylene meshes, only few studies have investigated meshes made of this material. It is known, however, that a reduction in the amount of material and an increase in pore size results in better mesh biocompatibility.

Methods

Six pigs each underwent laparoscopic intraabdominal placement of either a TiMesh or a DualMesh, both of which were prepared for implantation in standardized fashion. After 87 ± 2 days, the pigs were killed, and postmortem laparoscopy was performed, followed by the removal of the tissue embedding the mesh for assessment of adhesions and shrinkage, and for histologic workup. The specimens were processed both histologically and immunohistochemically.

Results

In all but one case, the greater omentum adhered, usually over discrete areas, to the mesh. In every case the omentum was separable from the mesh surface only by sharp dissection. With the titanium-coated polypropylene meshes, the average total adhesion area was only 0.085, as compared with 0.25 for the GoreTex meshes (p = 0.055). The GoreTex meshes showed an average shrinkage to almost half of the original surface area (median, 0.435). The average shrinkage of the TiMesh, was to 0.18 of the original area (p = 0.006), which thus was significantly smaller. Determination of the partial volume of the inflammatory cells showed significantly lower median figures for the TiMesh (p = 0.009). Measurements of the proliferation marker Ki67 showed significantly higher values for ePTFE than for TiMesh (p = 0.011). The apoptosis index was significantly higher for the ePTFE membranes (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) is clearly superior to the DualMesh in terms of biocompatibility, and is thus suitable for the laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall and incisional hernias.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baptista ML, Bonsack ME, Felemovicius I, Delaney JP (2000) Abdominal adhesions to prosthetic mesh evaluated by laparoscopy and electron microscopy. J Am Coll Surg 190: 271–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A (1995) Integration of biomaterials implanted into abdominal wall: process of scar formation and macrophage response. Biomaterials 16: 381–387

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A (1996) Interface formed between visceral peritoneum and experimental polypropylene or polytetrafluoroethylene abdominal wall implants. J Mat Sci Mat Med 7: 331–336

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, Carrera-San Martin A (1997) The use of biomaterials in the repair of abdominal wall defects: a comparative study between polypropylene meshes (Marlex) and a new polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis (DualMesh). J Biomater Appl 12: 12–35

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Pascual G, Bujan J (1999) Neoperitoneal formation after implantation of various biomaterials for the repair of abdominal wall defects in rabbits. Eur J Surg 165: 145–150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellon JM, Jurado F, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Lopez R, Carrera-San Martin A, Bujan J (2002) The structure of biomaterial rather than its chemical composition modulates the repair process at the peritoneal level. Am J Surg 184:154–159

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coda A, Bendavid R, Botto-Micca F, Bossotti M, Bona A (2003) Structural alterations of prosthetic meshes in humans. Hernia 7: 29–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Franklin ME, Gonzalez JJ, Glass JL, Manjarrez A (2004) Laparoscopic ventral and ncisional hernia repair: an 11-year experience. Hernia 8: 23–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Garcia-Ruiz A, Naitoh T, Gagner M (1998) A porcine model for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8(1): 35–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garrard CL, Clements RH, Nanney L, Davidson JM, Richards WO (1999) Adhesion formation is reduced after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13: 10–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greca FH, de Paula JB, Biondo-Simoes ML, da Costa FD, da Silva A, Time S, Mansur A (2001) The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects: experimental study in dogs. Hernia 5: 59–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238: 391–400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V (2002) Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 103: 208–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1998) Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 164: 965–959

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Schumpelick V (1999) Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 165: 665–673

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Hermanns B, Schumpelick V (2000) Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans. Chirurg 71: 43–51

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koehler RH, Begos D, Carey S, LeBlanc K, Park A, Ramshaw B, Smoot R, Voeller G (2003) Minimal adhesions to ePTFE mesh after laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair: reoperative findings in 65 cases. Zentralbl Chir 128: 625–630

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Larson GM (2000) Ventral hernia repair by the laparoscopic approach. Surg Clin North Am 80: 1329–1340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. LeBlanc KA, Whittaker JM, Bellanger DE, Rhynes VK (2003) Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernioplasty: lessons learned from 200 patients. Hernia 7: 118–124

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Pollinger HS, Backus CL, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) Assessment of adhesion formation to intraabdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114: 126–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE (1998) The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature review and clinical experience. J Am Coll Surg 186: 352–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2004) In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty. Surg Endosc 18: 211–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schumpelick V, Klinge U, Welty G, Klosterhalfen B (2000) Meshes within the abdominal wall. Chirurg 70: 876–887

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schumpelick V, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Klinge U (1999) Minimierte Polypropylen-Netze zur präperitonealen Netzplastik (PNP) der Narbenhernie [Minimized polypropylene mesh for preperitoneal net plasty (PNP) of incisional hernia]. Chirurg 70: 422–430

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Treutner KH, Müller SA, Jansen M, Schumpelick V (2001) Incidence, complications, and prophylaxis of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. Viszeralchirurgie 36: 369–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vrijland WW, Bonthuis F, Steyerberg EW, Marquet RL, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2000) Peritoneal adhesions to prosthetic materials: choice of mesh for incisional hernia repair. Surg Endosc 14: 960–963

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Kasperk R, Schumpelick V (2001) Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia 5: 142–147

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Young RM, Gustafson R, Dinsmore RC (2004) Sepramesh vs Dualmesh for abdominal wall hernia repairs in a rabbit model. Curr Surg 61: 77–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zühlke HV, Lorenz EMP, Straub EM, Savvas V (1990) Pathophysiology and classification of adhesions. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir 345: 1009–1016

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by GfE (Medizintechnik GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) and by W. L. Gore (Flagstaff, AZ, USA). Special thanks are extended to F. Pölzing, DVM (FiM, Beichlingen, Germany) for animal care.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hanover Hospital, Roesebeckstrasse 15 (Siloah), Hanover, 30449, Germany

    C. Schug-Paß, C. Tamme & F. Köckerling

  2. Institute of Pathology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 26, Leipzig, 04103, Germany

    A. Tannapfel

Authors
  1. C. Schug-Paß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Tamme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Tannapfel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Köckerling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Schug-Paß.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schug-Paß, C., Tamme, C., Tannapfel, A. et al. A lightweight polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) for laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall hernias. Surg Endosc 20, 402–409 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8277-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8277-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation