Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cell-coating affects tissue integration of synthetic and biologic meshes: comparative analysis of the onlay and underlay mesh positioning in rats

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

While mesh reinforcement is recognized as the optimal strategy for many hernia repairs, there remains debate on the optimal position for deployment and characteristics that lead to improved biocompatibility. Coatings are an avenue by which integration may be improved. Our aim was to evaluate tissue integration between uncoated, fibroblast- and mesenchymal stem cell-coated meshes placed as subcutaneous onlay (ON) or intraperitoneal underlay (UN).

Methods

Three commonly used biologic and synthetic hernia meshes were tested including Parietex, TIGR and Strattice. Each mesh was coated with rat kidney fibroblasts (NRKs) or rat mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) along with an uncoated group. In the ON group, mesh was fixated on top of the external oblique fascia. In the UN group, mesh was placed against the intact peritoneum. Animals were survived for 30 days and killed for biomechanical and histologic analysis. A “T”-peel test was performed on a mesh–tissue explant from each sample to analyze the strength of integration at the mesh–tissue interface. Tissue integration was evaluated histologically using an established scoring system.

Results

All uncoated meshes demonstrated significantly higher tissue ingrowth in the UN compared to ON position. Cell-coating of synthetic meshes decreased tissue ingrowth as UN, but increased it as ON, with a net effect of minimizing biomechanical difference between the two positions. In the biologic group however, NRK-coating decreased tissue ingrowth regardless of position, while MSC-coating increased it in both ON and UN positions.

Conclusions

Both cell-coating and positioning affect mesh–tissue integration. Integration is superior in the underlay position compared to onlay when uncoated. Cell-coating of selected synthetic meshes can improve integration, particularly in the onlay position. Furthermore, MSCs appear to be a viable choice for biologic mesh coating, especially when implanted as an onlay. Overall, cell-coating of surgical meshes appears to a have a potential to improve mesh–tissue integration.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orenstein SB, Dumeer JL, Monteagudo J, Poi MJ, Novitsky YW (2011) Outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with routine defect closure using “shoelacing” technique. Surg Endosc 25(5):1452–1457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosen MJ, Jin J, McGee MF, Williams C, Marks J, Ponsky JL (2007) Laparoscopic component separation in the single-stage treatment of infected abdominal wall prosthetic removal. Hernia 11(5):435–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF et al (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148(3):544–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Timmermans L, de Goede B, van Dijk SM, Kleinrensink G-J, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2014) Meta-analysis of sublay versus onlay mesh repair in incisional hernia surgery. Am J Surg 207(6):980–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Benhidjeb T, Benecke C, Strik MW (2008) [Incisional hernia repair: sublay or intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM)?]. Zentralbl Chir 133(5):458–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Demetrashvili ZM, kerkadze VN, Pipia IN, Topchishvili GG (2009) [Comparative evaluate of methods of placement of polypropylene meshes in alloplastic of incisional hernias]. Georgian Med News 175:7–9

    Google Scholar 

  7. Petter-Puchner AH, Fortelny RH, Silic K, Brand J, Gruber-Blum S, Redl H (2011) Biologic hernia implants in experimental intraperitoneal onlay mesh plasty repair: the impact of proprietary collagen processing methods and fibrin sealant application on tissue integration. Surg Endosc 25(10):3245–3252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT (2008) Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol 20(2):86–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Junge K, Binnebösel M, von Trotha KT, Rosch R, Klinge U, Neumann UP et al (2012) Mesh biocompatibility: effects of cellular inflammation and tissue remodelling. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(2):255–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brandt CJ, Kammer D, Fiebeler A, Klinge U (2011) Beneficial effects of hydrocortisone or spironolactone coating on foreign body response to mesh biomaterial in a mouse model. J Biomed Mater Res A 99(3):335–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dolce CJ, Stefanidis D, Keller JE, Walters KC, Newcomb WL, Heath JJ et al (2010) Pushing the envelope in biomaterial research: initial results of prosthetic coating with stem cells in a rat model. Surg Endosc 24(11):2687–2693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Holt DJ, Chamberlain LM, Grainger DW (2010) Cell-cell signaling in co-cultures of macrophages and fibroblasts. Biomaterials 31(36):9382–9394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Otto WR, Wright NA (2011) Mesenchymal stem cells: from experiment to clinic. Fibrogenesis Tissue Repair 4:20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gao Y, Liu L-J, Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Anderson JM, Criss CN et al (2014) Methodology of fibroblast and mesenchymal stem cell coating of surgical meshes: a pilot analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 102(4):797–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhou HY, Zhang J, Yan RL, Wang Q, Fan LY, Zhang Q et al (2011) Improving the antibacterial property of porcine small intestinal submucosa by nano-silver supplementation: a promising biological material to address the need for contaminated defect repair. Ann Surg 253(5):1033–1041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Binnebösel M, von Trotha KT, Ricken C, Klink CD, Junge K, Conze J et al (2012) Gentamicin supplemented polyvinylidenfluoride mesh materials enhance tissue integration due to a transcriptionally reduced MMP-2 protein expression. BMC Surg 12:1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Israelsson LA (2008) Parastomal hernias. Surg Clin North Am 88(1):113–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Albino FP, Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Sosin M, Attinger CE, Bhanot P (2013) Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(5):1295–1304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hawn MT, Snyder CW, Graham LA, Gray SH, Finan KR, Vick CC (2010) Long-term follow-up of technical outcomes for incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 210(5): 648–55, 655–7

  20. Venclauskas L, Maleckas A, Kiudelis M (2010) One-year follow-up after incisional hernia treatment: results of a prospective randomized study. Hernia 14(6):575–582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2012) The biology of biologics: basic science and clinical concepts. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(5 Suppl 2):9S–17S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Petter-Puchner AH, Fortelny RH, Mika K, Hennerbichler S, Redl H, Gabriel C (2011) Human vital amniotic membrane reduces adhesions in experimental intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair. Surg Endosc 25(7):2125–2131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Herrero C, Pérez-Simón JA (2010) Immunomodulatory effect of mesenchymal stem cells. Braz J Med Biol Res 43(5):425–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Asarias JR, Nguyen PT, Mings JR, Gehrich AP, Pierce LM (2011) Influence of mesh materials on the expression of mediators involved in wound healing. J Invest Surg 24(2):87–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nguyen PT, Asarias JR, Pierce LM (2012) Influence of a new monofilament polyester mesh on inflammation and matrix remodeling. J Invest Surg 25(5):330–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gonzalez R, Ramshaw BJ (2003) Comparison of tissue integration between polyester and polypropylene prostheses in the preperitoneal space. Am Surg 69(6):471–476 (Discussion 476–7)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vereczkei A, Varga G, Tornoczky T, Papp A, Horvath ÖP (2012) A new experimental method for hiatal reinforcement using connective tissue patch transfer. Dis Esophagus 25(5):465–469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hjort H, Mathisen T, Alves A, Clermont G, Boutrand JP (2012) Three-year results from a preclinical implantation study of a long-term resorbable surgical mesh with time-dependent mechanical characteristics. Hernia 16(2):191–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Peeters E, van Barneveld KWY, Schreinemacher MH, De Hertogh G, Ozog Y, Bouvy N et al (2013) One-year outcome of biological and synthetic bioabsorbable meshes for augmentation of large abdominal wall defects in a rabbit model. J Surg Res 180(2):274–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Orenstein SB, Qiao Y, Klueh U, Kreutzer DL, Novitsky YW (2010) Activation of human mononuclear cells by porcine biologic meshes in vitro. Hernia 14(4):401–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Orenstein SB, Qiao Y, Kaur M, Klueh U, Kreutzer DL, Novitsky YW (2010) Human monocyte activation by biologic and biodegradable meshes in vitro. Surg Endosc 24(4):805–811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Deeken CR, Matthews BD (2012) Comparison of contracture, adhesion, tissue ingrowth, and histologic response characteristics of permanent and absorbable barrier meshes in a porcine model of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 16(1):69–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. McGinty JJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, Fowler DL (2005) A comparative study of adhesion formation and abdominal wall ingrowth after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in a porcine model using multiple types of mesh. Surg Endosc 19(6):786–790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jacob BP, Hogle NJ, Durak E, Kim T, Fowler DL (2007) Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus Proceed versus Parietex Composite. Surg Endosc 21(4):629–633

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jenkins ED, Melman L, Deeken CR, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2010) Evaluation of fenestrated and non-fenestrated biologic grafts in a porcine model of mature ventral incisional hernia repair. Hernia 14(6):599–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the internal grant from Department of Surgery University Hospitals Case Medical Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Arnab Majumder, Yue Gao, Emanuel E. Sadava, James M. Anderson & Yuri W. Novitsky

Authors
  1. Arnab Majumder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emanuel E. Sadava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James M. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuri W. Novitsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuri W. Novitsky.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Arnab Majumder, Yue Gao, Emanuel E. Sadava, and James M. Anderson declare no conflict of interest. Yuri W. Novitsky is a consultant for C.R. Bard, Inc., LifeCell Corp. and Cooper Surgical, Inc., and has received research support from C.R. Bard, Inc.

Additional information

This study was supported by the internal grant from Department of Surgery University Hospitals Case Medical Center.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Majumder, A., Gao, Y., Sadava, E.E. et al. Cell-coating affects tissue integration of synthetic and biologic meshes: comparative analysis of the onlay and underlay mesh positioning in rats. Surg Endosc 30, 4445–4453 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4764-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4764-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation