Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 2/2017

Open Access 01-02-2017 | Review Article

In vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models: a review of biocompatibility

Authors: Michelle Kelly, Katherine Macdougall, Oluwafisayo Olabisi, Neil McGuire

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Polypropylene is a material that is commonly used to treat pelvic floor conditions such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Owing to the nature of complications experienced by some patients implanted with either incontinence or prolapse meshes, the biocompatibility of polypropylene has recently been questioned. This literature review considers the in vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models. The specific areas explored in this review are material selection, impact of anatomical location, and the structure, weight and size of polypropylene mesh types.

Methods

All relevant abstracts from original articles investigating the host response of mesh in vivo were reviewed. Papers were obtained and categorised into various mesh material types: polypropylene, polypropylene composites, and other synthetic and biologically derived mesh.

Results

Polypropylene mesh fared well in comparison with other material types in terms of host response. It was found that a lightweight, large-pore mesh is the most appropriate structure.

Conclusion

The evidence reviewed shows that polypropylene evokes a less inflammatory or similar host response when compared with other materials used in mesh devices.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Gigliobianco G, Roman Regueros S, Osman NI, Bissoli J, Bullock AJ, Chapple CR, MacNeil S (2014) Biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: how can we do better? Biomed Res Int 2015:968087
2.
Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco AG, Zyczynski H, Brown MB, Weber AM (2006) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 354:1557–1566CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kanagarajah P, Ayyathurai R, Gomez C (2012) Evaluation of current synthetic mesh materials in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Curr Urol Rep 13:240–246CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Margossian H, Walters MD, Falcone T (1999) Laparoscopic management of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 85:57–62CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Burch JC (1961) Urethrovaginal fixation to Cooper’s ligament for correction of stress incontinence, cystocele, and prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 81:281CrossRefPubMed
8.
Burch JC (2002) Cooper’s ligament urethrovesical suspension for stress incontinence: nine years’ experience-results, complications, techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:512–513CrossRefPubMed
9.
Krause H, Bennett M, Forwood M, Goh J (2008) Biomechanical properties of raw meshes used in pelvic floor reconstruction. Int Urogynecol J 19:1677–1681CrossRef
10.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506CrossRefPubMed
11.
Stanford EJ, Cassidenti A, Moen MD (2012) Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Int Urogynecol J 23:19–28CrossRefPubMed
12.
Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1306CrossRefPubMed
13.
Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC, Menefee SA, Lukacz ES, Norton P, Schaffer J (2014) Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA 311:1023–1034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Bendavid R (2001) Abdominal wall hernias: principles and management. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkCrossRef
15.
Abbott S, Unger CA, Evans JM, Jallad K, Mishra K, Karram MM, Iglesia CB, Rardin CR, Barber MD (2014) Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210:163CrossRefPubMed
16.
Huber A, McCabe GP, Boruch AV, Medberry C, Honerlaw M, Badylak SF (2012) Polypropylene-containing synthetic mesh devices in soft tissue repair: a meta-analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 100:145–154CrossRefPubMed
17.
Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21CrossRef
18.
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 103:208–214CrossRefPubMed
19.
Mistrangelo E, Mancuso S, Nadalini C, Lijoi D, Costantini S (2007) Rising use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery: a review of the risk of vaginal erosion. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:564–569CrossRefPubMed
20.
Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, Hakakha M (1994) Biomaterials for abdominal wall hernia surgery and principles of their applications. Langenbecks Arch Surg 379:168–171CrossRef
21.
de Castro Brás LE, Shurey S, Sibbons PD (2012) Evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic prostheses for abdominal hernia repair. Hernia 16:77–89CrossRefPubMed
22.
Fan X, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H (2014) Comparison of polypropylene mesh and porcine-derived, cross-linked urinary bladder matrix materials implanted in the rabbit vagina and abdomen. Int Urogynecol J 25:683–689CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Read RC (1999) Francis C. Usher, herniologist of the twentieth century. Hernia 3:167–171CrossRef
25.
Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12:63–69CrossRefPubMed
26.
Bilsel Y, Ilker A (2012) The search for ideal hernia repair; mesh materials and types. Int J Surg 10(6):317–321CrossRefPubMed
27.
Skoczylas LC, Shepherd JP, Smith KJ, Lowder JL (2013) Managing mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair: a decision analysis comparing conservative versus surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J 24:119–125CrossRefPubMed
28.
Tinkler JJB (2000) Biological safety & European medical device regulations. Quality First International Press, London
29.
Van Geelen JM, Dwyer PL (2013) Where to for pelvic organ prolapse treatment after the FDA pronouncements? Int Urogynecol J 24:707–718CrossRefPubMed
30.
Schimpf MO, Rahn DD, Wheeler TL, Patel M, White AB, Orejuela FJ, El-Nashar SA, Margulies RU, Gleason JL, Aschkenazi SO (2014) Sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 211:71.e1–71.e27CrossRef
31.
Aqil A, Sidiqui M (2012) A critical appraisal of the evidence regarding the choice of common bearing couples available for total hip arthroplasty. J Pak Med Assoc 62:829–834PubMed
32.
Williams DF (1987) Definitions in biomaterials: proceedings of a consensus conference of the European Society for Biomaterials, Chester, England, March 3–5, 1986, 4 edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam
33.
34.
Mallard BA, Wilkie BN (2007) Phenotypic, genetic and epigenetic variation of immune response and disease resistance traits of pigs. Adv Pork Prod 18:139–146
35.
Usher FC, Allen JE, Crosthwait RW, Cogan JE (1962) Polypropylene monofilament: a new, biologically inert suture for closing contaminated wounds. JAMA 179:780–782CrossRefPubMed
36.
Wagner M (1970) Evaluation of diverse plastic and cutis prostheses in a growing host. Surg Gynecol Obstet 130:1077–1081PubMed
37.
Novotný T, Jerábek J, Veselý K, Staffa R, Dvorák M, Cagaš J (2012) Evaluation of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene mesh placed intraperitoneally in a New Zealand white rabbit model. Surg Endosc 26:1884–1891CrossRefPubMed
38.
Hengirmen S, Cete M, Soran A, Aksoy F, Sencer H, Okay E (1998) Comparison of meshes for the repair of experimental abdominal wall defects. Investig Surg 11:315–325CrossRef
39.
Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Gersin KS, Norton HJ, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 21:1170–1174CrossRefPubMed
40.
Bleichrodt RP, Simmermacher RK, Van der Lei B, Schakenraad JM (1993) Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch versus polypropylene mesh for the repair of contaminated defects of the abdominal wall. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176:18–24PubMed
41.
De Tayrac R, Gervaise A, Fernandez H (2001) Cystocele repair with a fixation-free prosthetic polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 12:S92
42.
Sarsotti C, Lamm M, Testa R (2001) Rectocele repair using a prolene mesh in patients with defecatory outlet obstruction. Int Urogynecol J 12:S82
43.
Zinther NB, Wara P, Friis-Andersen H (2010) Shrinkage of intraperitoneal onlay mesh in sheep: coated polyester mesh versus covered polypropylene mesh. Hernia 14:611–615CrossRefPubMed
44.
Orenstein SB, Saberski ER, Kreutzer DL, Novitsky YW (2012) Comparative analysis of histopathologic effects of synthetic meshes based on material, weight, and pore size in mice. J Surg Res 176:423–429CrossRefPubMed
45.
Boulanger L, Boukerrou M, Lambaudie E, Defossez A, Cosson M (2006) Tissue integration and tolerance to meshes used in gynecologic surgery: an experimental study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 125:103–108CrossRefPubMed
46.
Byrd JF, Agee N, Nguyen PH, Heath JJ, Lau KN, McKillop IH, Sindram D, Martinie JB, Iannitti DA (2011) Evaluation of composite mesh for ventral hernia repair. JSLS Surg 15:298CrossRef
47.
Marcondes W, Herbella FA, Matone J, Odashiro AN, Goldenberg A (2008) Laparoscopic evaluation of abdominal adhesions with different prosthetic meshes in rabbits. JSLS 12:58PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Junge K, Rosch R, Krones CJ, Klinge U, Mertens PR, Lynen P, Schumpelick V, Klosterhalfen B (2005) Influence of polyglecaprone 25 (Monocryl) supplementation on the biocompatibility of a polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. Hernia 9:212–217CrossRefPubMed
49.
Quininol RM, Araújo-Filho I, LimaIII FP, Barbosa IV ALC (2013) Adhesion prevention in reabsorbable polyethylene glycol hydrogel (Coseal®) coated polypropylene mesh in rabbits. Acta Cir Bras 28:807–814CrossRef
50.
Vogels RRM, van Barneveld KWY, Bosmans JWAM, Beets G, Gijbels MJJ, Schreinemacher MHF, Bouvy ND (2015) Long-term evaluation of adhesion formation and foreign body response to three new meshes. Surg Endosc 29:2251–2259CrossRefPubMed
51.
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: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endoscop Other Interv Techn 18:211–220CrossRef
52.
Murat Samli M, Demirbas M, Guler C, Aktepe F, Dincel C (2004) Early tissue reactions in the rat bladder wall after contact with three different synthetic mesh materials. BJU Int 93:617–621CrossRefPubMed
53.
Utiyama EM, Rosa MB, Andres Mde, Miranda JS, Damous SH, Birolini CAV, Damous LL, Montero E (2015) Polypropylene and polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Ultrapro®) meshes in the repair of incisional hernia in rats. Acta Cir Bras 30:376–381CrossRefPubMed
54.
Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, Kinne I, Jakobsson U, Teleman P (2014) Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG An Int J Obst Gynaecol 121:102–111CrossRef
55.
Huffaker RK, Muir TW, Rao A, Baumann SS, Kuehl TJ, Pierce LM (2008) Histologic response of porcine collagen-coated and uncoated polypropylene grafts in a rabbit vagina model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:582.e1–582.e7CrossRef
56.
Pierce LM, Asarias JR, Nguyen PT, Mings JR, Gehrich AP (2011) Inflammatory cytokine and matrix metalloproteinase expression induced by collagen-coated and uncoated polypropylene meshes in a rat model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:82.e1–82.e9CrossRef
57.
Van’t Riet M, Burger JWA, Bonthuis F, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2004) Prevention of adhesion formation to polypropylene mesh by collagen coating: a randomized controlled study in a rat model of ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 18:681–685CrossRef
58.
Pierce LM, Rao A, Baumann SS, Glassberg JE, Kuehl TJ, Muir TW (2009) Long-term histologic response to synthetic and biologic graft materials implanted in the vagina and abdomen of a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:546.e1–546.e8CrossRef
59.
Endo M, Urbankova I, Vlacil J, Sengupta S, Deprest T, Klosterhalfen B, Feola A, Deprest J (2015) Cross-linked xenogenic collagen implantation in the sheep model for vaginal surgery. Gynecol Surg 12:113–122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
60.
Badylak SF (2014) Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng 42:1517–1527CrossRefPubMed
61.
Krambeck AE, Dora CD, Sebo TJ, Rohlinger AL, DiMarco DS, Elliott DS (2006) Time-dependent variations in inflammation and scar formation of six different pubovaginal sling materials in the rabbit model. Urology 67:1105–1110CrossRefPubMed
62.
Christodoulou MG, Papalois A, Mouzakis D, Zaoutsos S, Kouranos T, Seferlis M, Katsifotis C, Liapis A (2013) Dynamic mechanical properties of tissue after long-term implantation of collagen and polypropylene meshes in animal models. OJU 3:155–159CrossRef
63.
Shi P, Gao M, Shen Q, Hou L, Zhu Y, Wang J (2015) Biocompatible surgical meshes based on decellularized human amniotic membrane. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 54:112–119CrossRefPubMed
64.
De Tayrac R, Chentouf S, Garreau H, Braud C, Guiraud I, Boudeville P, Vert M (2008) In vitro degradation and in vivo biocompatibility of poly (lactic acid) mesh for soft tissue reinforcement in vaginal surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 85:529–536CrossRefPubMed
65.
Pans A, Elen P, Dewé W, Desaive C (1998) Long-term results of polyglactin mesh for the prevention of incisional hernias in obese patients. World J Surg 22:479–483CrossRefPubMed
66.
Lamb JP, Vitale T, Kaminski DL (1983) Comparative evaluation of synthetic meshes used for abdominal wall replacement. Surgery 93:643–648PubMed
67.
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 16:191–197CrossRefPubMed
68.
De Tayrac R, Oliva-Lauraire MC, Guiraud I, Henry L, Vert M, Mares P (2007) Long-lasting bioresorbable poly (lactic acid)(PLA94) mesh: a new approach for soft tissue reinforcement based on an experimental pilot study. Int Urogynecol J 18:1007–1014CrossRef
69.
De Tayrac R, Letouzey V, Garreau H, Guiraud I, Vert M, Mares P (2010) Tissue healing during degradation of a long-lasting bioresorbable gamma-ray-sterilised poly (lactic acid) mesh in the rat: a 12-month study. Eur Surg Res 44:102–110CrossRefPubMed
70.
Conze J, Rosch R, Klinge U, Weiss C, Anurov M, Titkowa S, Oettinger A, Schumpelick V (2004) Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: influence of pore size and surface area. Hernia 8:365–372CrossRefPubMed
71.
Jerabek J, Novotny T, Vesely K, Cagas J, Jedlicka V, Vlcek P, Capov I (2014) Evaluation of three purely polypropylene meshes of different pore sizes in an onlay position in a New Zealand white rabbit model. Hernia 18:855–864CrossRefPubMed
72.
Junge K, Binnebösel M, Rosch R, Öttinger A, Stumpf M, Mühlenbruch G, Schumpelick V, Klinge U (2008) Influence of mesh materials on the integrity of the vas deferens following Lichtenstein hernioplasty: an experimental model. Hernia 12:621–626CrossRefPubMed
73.
Feola A, Abramowitch S, Jallah Z, Stein S, Barone W, Palcsey S, Moalli P (2013) Deterioration in biomechanical properties of the vagina following implantation of a high-stiffness prolapse mesh. BJOG 120:224–232CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Liang R, Abramowitch S, Knight K, Palcsey S, Nolfi A, Feola A, Stein S, Moalli PA (2013) Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG 120:233–243CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
75.
Liang R, Zong W, Palcsey S, Abramowitch S, Moalli PA (2015) Impact of prolapse meshes on the metabolism of vaginal extracellular matrix in rhesus macaque. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212:174.e1–174.e7CrossRef
76.
Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD, Carbonell AM, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 136:1–7CrossRefPubMed
77.
Ozog Y, Konstantinovic ML, Werbrouck E, De Ridder D, Edoardo M, Deprest J (2011) Shrinkage and biomechanical evaluation of lightweight synthetics in a rabbit model for primary fascial repair. Int Urogynecol J 22:1099–1108CrossRefPubMed
78.
Krause HG, Galloway SJ, Khoo SK, Lourie R, Goh JT (2006) Biocompatible properties of surgical mesh using an animal model. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol 46:42–45CrossRef
79.
Díaz-Godoy A, García-Ureña MA, López-Monclús J, Ruiz VV, Montes DM, Agurto NE (2011) Searching for the best polypropylene mesh to be used in bowel contamination. Hernia 15:173–179CrossRefPubMed
80.
Badiou W, Lavigne JP, Bousquet PJ, O’Callaghan D, Marès P, de Tayrac R (2011) In vitro and in vivo assessment of silver-coated polypropylene mesh to prevent infection in a rat model. Int Urogynecol J 22:265–272CrossRefPubMed
81.
Manodoro S, Endo M, Uvin P, Albersen M, Vlácil J, Engels A, Schmidt B, Ridder D, Feola A, Deprest J (2013) Graft-related complications and biaxial tensiometry following experimental vaginal implantation of flat mesh of variable dimensions. BJOG 120:244–250CrossRefPubMed
82.
Hilger WS, Walter A, Zobitz ME, Leslie KO, Magtibay P, Cornella J (2006) Histological and biomechanical evaluation of implanted graft materials in a rabbit vaginal and abdominal model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1826–1831CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
In vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models: a review of biocompatibility
Authors
Michelle Kelly
Katherine Macdougall
Oluwafisayo Olabisi
Neil McGuire
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3029-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

International Urogynecology Journal 2/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study

Special Contribution

An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction

Urogynecology Digest

Urogynecology digest

Original Article

Nocturnal enuresis: prevalence and associated LUTS in adult women attending a urogynaecology clinic

Editorial

Moving from vaginal hysterectomy to “no-incision” hysterectomy: how terminology has an impact

Original Article

Complications and reoperations after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a mean follow-up of 4 years