Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of implant/host tissue interactions following intraperitoneal implantation of porcine dermal collagen prosthesis in the rat

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An ideal prosthesis for ventral hernia repair should minimize development of postoperative adhesions. This study evaluates adhesion formation following intraperitoneal implantation of acellular porcine dermal collagen (PDC) and polypropylene (PP) mesh in 16 rats. Implant placement alternated left/right. Sacrifice (4 or 12 weeks) was randomized. Methods included adhesion grading (extent, severity, required dissection method) and histological evaluation. At 4 weeks, 7 of 8 PDC specimens and 0 of 8 PP implants were adhesion-free; results were identical at 12 weeks. Four-week adhesions were less developed than 12-week adhesions. Histology showed mononuclear cell foreign body reaction and disorganized collagen deposition for PPs compared to infiltration with neovascular channels and qualitatively less intense foreign body reaction for PDCs. PDC exhibits fewer adhesions and more favorable cellular response than PP in the rat.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, van den Tol MJ et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hesselink VJ, Luijendijk RW, de Wilt JH, Heide R, Jeekel J (1993) An evaluation of risk factors in incisional hernia recurrence. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176:228–234

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cassar K, Munro A (2002) Surgical treatment of incisional hernia. Br J Surg 89:534–545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. George CD, Ellis H (1986) The results of incisional hernia repair: a twelve year review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 68:185–187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T (2003) Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time? A population-based analysis. Ann Surg 237:129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Korenkov M, Sauerland S, Arndt M, Bograd L, Neugebauer EA, Troidl H (2002) Randomized clinical trial of suture repair, polypropylene mesh or autodermal hernioplasty for incisional hernia. Br J Surg 89:50–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rios A, Rodriguez JM, Munitiz V, Alcaraz P, Perez D, Parrilla P (2001) Factors that affect recurrence after incisional herniorrhaphy with prosthetic material. Eur J Surg 167:855–859

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Anthony T, Bergen PC, Kim LT et al (2000) Factors affecting recurrence following incisional herniorrhaphy. World J Surg 24:95–100; discussion 101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. LeBlanc KA, Bellanger D, Rhynes KVt, Baker DG, Stout RW (2002) Tissue attachment strength of prosthetic meshes used in ventral and incisional hernia repair. A study in the New Zealand White rabbit adhesion model. Surg Endosc 16:1542–1546

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jenkins SD, Klamer TW, Parteka JJ, Condon RE (1983) A comparison of prosthetic materials used to repair abdominal wall defects. Surgery 94:392–398

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Langer S, Christiansen J (1985) Long-term results after incisional hernia repair. Acta Chir Scand 151:217–219

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. DeBord JR (1994) Prostheses and hernia surgery: The evolution of the ideal material. In: Bendavid R (ed) Prostheses and abdominal wall hernias. R.G. Landes Company, Austin, pp 7–32

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baykal A, Yorganci K, Sokmensuer C, Hamaloglu E, Renda N, Sayek I (2000) An experimental study of the adhesive potential of different meshes. Eur J Surg 166:490–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 (Dual Mesh). J Biomater Appl 12:121–135

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Besim H, Yalcin Y, Hamamci O et al (2002) Prevention of intraabdominal adhesions produced by polypropylene mesh. Eur Surg Res 34:239–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Farmer L, Ayoub M, Warejcka D, Southerland S, Freeman A, Solis M (1998) Adhesion formation after intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal implantation of polypropylene mesh. Am Surg 64:144–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Franklin ME Jr, Gonzalez JJ Jr, Michaelson RP, Glass JL, Chock DA (2002) Preliminary experience with new bioactive prosthetic material for repair of hernias in infected fields. Hernia 6:171–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Harper C (2001) Permacol: clinical experience with a new biomaterial. Hosp Med 62:90–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yelimlies B, Alponat A, Cubukcut A, Kuru M, Oz S, Ercin C, Gonullu N (2003) Carboxymethylcellulose coated on visceral face of polypropylene mesh prevents adhesion without impairing wound healing in incisional hernia model in rats. Hernia 7:130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Malazgirt Z, Ulusoy AN, Gok Y, karagoz F, Tac K (2000) Bioabsorbable membrane prevents adhesions to polypropylene mesh in rats. Hernia 4:129–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Steinleitner A, Lambert H, Kazensky C, Cantor B (1991) Poloxamer 407 as an intraperitoneal barrier materialfor the prevention of postsurgical adhesion formation and reformation in rodent models for reproductive surgery. Obstet Gynecol 77:48–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dabrowiecki S, Svanes K, Lekven J, Grong K (1991) Tissue reaction to polypropylene mesh: a study of oedema, blood flow, and inflammation in the abdominal wall. Eur Surg Res 23:240–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. James NL, Poole-Warren LA, Schindhelm K et al (1991) Comparative evaluation of treated bovine pericardium as a xenograft for hernia repair. Biomaterials 12:801–809

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Elliott MP, Juler GL (1979) Comparison of Marlex mesh and microporous Teflon sheets when used for hernia repair in experimental animals. Am J Surg 137:342–344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Law NW, Ellis H (1988) Adhesion formation and peritoneal healing on prosthetic materials. Clin Mater 3:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Clark JL (2001) Ventral incisional hernia recurrence. J Surg Res 99:33–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bobyn JD, Wilson GJ, MacGregor DC, Pilliar RM, Weatherly GC (1982) Effect of pore size on the peel strength of attachment of fibrous tissue to porous-surfaced implants. J Biomed Mater Res 16:571–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Simmermacher RK, Schakenraad JM, Bleichrodt RP (1994) Reherniation after repair of the abdominal wall with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. J Am Coll Surg 178:613–616

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Chavpil M, Holusa R, Kliment K et al (1969) Some chemical and biologic characteristics of a new collagen-polymer compound material. J Biomed Mater Res 3:315–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Claerhout f, Deprest J, Zheng F (2003) Long term evaluation of the tissue response and mechanical properties of two collagen based and polypropylene implants in a rabbit model off abdominal wall repair, International Continence Society, Florence, Italy

  33. Dalla Vecchia L, Engum S, Kogon B, Jensen E, Davis M, Grosfeld J (1999) Evaluation of small intestine submucosa and acellular dermis as diaphragmatic prostheses. J Pediatr Surg 34:167–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cumberland VH (1952) Preliminary report on the use of prefabricated nylon weave in the repair of ventral hernias. Med J Aust 1:143–144

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Read RC (1994) Prostheses and abdominal wall hernia surgery. In: Bendavid R (ed) Prostheses and abdominal wall hernias. R.G. Landes Company, Austin, pp 2–6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montefiore Medical Center, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA

    Ronald N. Kaleya

Authors
  1. Ronald N. Kaleya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald N. Kaleya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaleya, R.N. Evaluation of implant/host tissue interactions following intraperitoneal implantation of porcine dermal collagen prosthesis in the rat. Hernia 9, 269–276 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-005-0003-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-005-0003-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation