Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 4/2007

01-04-2007

Experimental Comparison of Monofile Light and Heavy Polypropylene Meshes: Less Weight Does not Mean Less Biological Response

Authors: Grigoris Chatzimavroudis, Basilis Papaziogas, Ioannis Koutelidakis, Konstantinos Atmatzidis

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 4/2007

Login to get access

Excerpt

Recently, Weyhe et al.1 performed a comparison between a heavy macroporous mesh (90 g/m2, 0.8 mm thick, 0.82 mm pore size) and a light microporous mesh (36g/m2, 0.25 mm thick, microporous) with respect to their biocompatibility expressed by the local inflammatory response and the thickness of the implant matrix. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the meshes with respect to the thickness of the implant matrix. However, the microporous mesh induced a more significant foreign-body reaction than the macroporous mesh. The authors concluded that the main independent determinant of the biocompatibility of a synthetic mesh is not the amount (weight) of the implanted material but the size of its pores. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Weyne D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O, Grabs R, Muller K, Waldemar U, Zumtobel V. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 2006;30:1586–1591CrossRef Weyne D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O, Grabs R, Muller K, Waldemar U, Zumtobel V. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 2006;30:1586–1591CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Conze J, Rosch R, Klinge U, Weiss C, Anurov M, Titkowa S, Oettinger A, Schumpelick V. Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: influence of pore size and surface area. Hernia 2004;8:365–372PubMedCrossRef Conze J, Rosch R, Klinge U, Weiss C, Anurov M, Titkowa S, Oettinger A, Schumpelick V. Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: influence of pore size and surface area. Hernia 2004;8:365–372PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Schmidbauer S, Ladurner R, Hallfeldt KK, Mussack T. Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. Eur J Med Res 2005;10:247–253PubMed Schmidbauer S, Ladurner R, Hallfeldt KK, Mussack T. Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. Eur J Med Res 2005;10:247–253PubMed
4.
go back to reference Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, Klosterhalfen B. Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:129–136PubMedCrossRef Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, Klosterhalfen B. Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:129–136PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Experimental Comparison of Monofile Light and Heavy Polypropylene Meshes: Less Weight Does not Mean Less Biological Response
Authors
Grigoris Chatzimavroudis
Basilis Papaziogas
Ioannis Koutelidakis
Konstantinos Atmatzidis
Publication date
01-04-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 4/2007
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-006-0785-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2007

World Journal of Surgery 4/2007 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Reply