Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Placement of an intraperitoneal prosthetic is required for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. The biocompatibility of these prosthetics determines the host’s inflammatory response, scar plate formation, tissue ingrowth, and subsequent mesh performance, including prosthetic compliance and prevention of hernia recurrence. We evaluated the host response to intraperitoneal placement of several prosthetics currently used in clinical practice.

Methods

A 4-cm × 4-cm piece of mesh was implanted on intact peritoneum in New Zealand white rabbits. The mesh types included expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) (DualMesh®), ePTFE and polypropylene (Composix®, heavyweight polypropylene), polypropylene and oxidized regenerated cellulose (Proceed®, midweight polypropylene), and polypropylene (Marlex®, heavyweight polypropylene). At four months, standard hematoxylin and eosin and Milligan’s trichrome stains of the mesh-tissue interaction were analyzed by three observers blinded to the mesh types. Each specimen was evaluated for scar plate formation, inflammatory response, and tissue ingrowth. Each of these three categories was graded on a standard scale of 1–4 (1 = normal tissue and 4 = severe inflammatory response). The scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum test with p < 0.05 as significant.

Results

Ten samples of each mesh type were evaluated. There was no difference in tissue incorporation between the groups. The mean scar plate formation was greater in the heavyweight polypropylene meshes than for DualMesh (p = 0.04). With Proceed, the reduction in scar plate formation compared with that for Composix and Marlex approached statistical significance (p = 0.07). The mean number of inflammatory cells was greater around the ePTFE when compared with the midweight polypropylene (p = 0.02) but equal to the other meshes.

Conclusions

The four prosthetic materials evaluated in this study demonstrate comparable host biocompatibility as evidenced by the tissue ingrowth. Scar plate formation around DualMesh was significantly less than that around Composix and Marlex. Interestingly, more inflammatory cells were noted surrounding the DualMesh which was equal to that of the heavyweight meshes. Proceed, a midweight polypropylene mesh, has the potential for improved patient tolerance compared to heavyweight polypropylene meshes based on its favorable histologic findings.

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. Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1: 15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240: 578–583; discussion 583–575

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12: 63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cumberland VH (1952) A preliminary report on the use of prefabricated nylon weave in the repair of ventral hernia. Med J Aust 1: 143–144

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cobb WS, Austin CE, Cristiano JA, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Prospective evaluation of adhesion formation and shrinkage of intra-abdominal prosthetics in a rabbit model. Am Surg 72: 808–813

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2000) Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair in 407 patients. J Am Coll Surg 190: 645–650

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years’ experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238: 391–399; discussion 399–400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (U.S.) (1996) Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  9. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Conze J, Limberg W, Obolenski B, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1998) Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. Eur J Surg 164: 951–960

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1998) Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 164: 965–969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Junge K, Klinge U, Rosch R, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2002) Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 63: 129–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U (2005) The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2: 103–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133: 378–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, Boelhouwer RU, de Vries BC, Salu MK, Wereldsma JC, Bruijninckx CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343: 392–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Backus CL, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2002) Comparison of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal mesh after laparoscopic adhesiolysis in the New Zealand White rabbit. Am Surg 68: 936–940; discussion 941

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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: 126–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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: 227–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mudge M, Hughes LE (1985) Incisional hernia: a 10 year prospective study of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg 72: 70–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Paton BL, Zerey M, Cristiano JA, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Comparative evaluation of adhesion formation, strength of ingrowth, and textile properties of various prosthetic biomaterials one-year after intra-abdominal implantation in a rabbit. J Surg Res 136(1):1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Park A, Birch DW, Lovrics P (1998) Laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair: a comparison study. Surgery 124: 816–821; discussion 821–812

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Scales JT (1953) Tissue reactions to synthetic materials. Proc R Soc Med 46: 647–652

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Voskerician G, Gingras PH, Anderson JM (2006) Macroporous condensed poly(tetrafluoroethylene). I. In vivo inflammatory response and healing characteristics. J Biomed Mater Res A 76:234–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, MEB #601, Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA

    Andrew G. Harrell, Yuri W. Novitsky, Joseph A. Cristiano, Keith S. Gersin, H. James Norton, Kent W. Kercher & B. Todd Heniford

Authors
  1. Andrew G. Harrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuri W. Novitsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph A. Cristiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keith S. Gersin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. James Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kent W. Kercher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. Todd Heniford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Todd Heniford.

Additional information

Presented at the SAGES Annual Scientific Meeting, Dallas, Texas, 26–29 April 2006

Study sponsored in part by Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harrell, A.G., Novitsky, Y.W., Cristiano, J.A. et al. Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 21, 1170–1174 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9147-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9147-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation