Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 2/2006

01-02-2006 | Original Article

In vivo comparison of suburethral sling materials

Authors: M. Slack, J. S. Sandhu, D. R. Staskin, R. C. Grant

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 2/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

In vivo tissue responses were compared for three commercially available polypropylene suburethral slings that differ markedly in fabric structure and in size of resulting interstices and pores. All three elicited the same basic inflammatory response; however, individual fabric structures produced distinct differences in tissue formation within each mesh. The presence of numerous, closely spaced, small diameter filaments prevented formation of extensive fibrous connective tissue within two slings (ObTape and IVS Tunneller mesh). The much larger diameter monofilament and open knit structure of the Monarc sling permitted the most extensive fibrous tissue integration. These differences may be of interest to physicians considering clinical use.
Literature
1.
go back to reference European markets for urological devices (2004) Medical Technology Report EUUR04, August 2004, p 57, Millennium Research Group, Toronto, ON, Canada European markets for urological devices (2004) Medical Technology Report EUUR04, August 2004, p 57, Millennium Research Group, Toronto, ON, Canada
2.
go back to reference Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21 Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21
3.
go back to reference Bellón JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A (1995) Integration of biomaterials implanted into abdominal wall: process of scar formation and macrophage response. Biomaterials 16:381–387PubMed Bellón JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A (1995) Integration of biomaterials implanted into abdominal wall: process of scar formation and macrophage response. Biomaterials 16:381–387PubMed
4.
go back to reference Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, Palomares D, Carrera-San Martin A (1998) Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials 19:669–675PubMed Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, Palomares D, Carrera-San Martin A (1998) Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials 19:669–675PubMed
5.
go back to reference Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, Öttinger AP, Klosterhalfen B (2002) Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 63:129–136PubMed Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, Öttinger AP, Klosterhalfen B (2002) Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 63:129–136PubMed
6.
go back to reference White RA, Hirose FM, Sproat RW, Lawrence RS, Nelson RJ (1981) Histopathologic observations after short-term implantation of two porous elastomers in dogs. Biomaterials 2:171–176PubMed White RA, Hirose FM, Sproat RW, Lawrence RS, Nelson RJ (1981) Histopathologic observations after short-term implantation of two porous elastomers in dogs. Biomaterials 2:171–176PubMed
7.
go back to reference Morehead JM, Holt GR (1994) Soft-tissue response to synthetic biomaterials. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 27:195–201 Morehead JM, Holt GR (1994) Soft-tissue response to synthetic biomaterials. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 27:195–201
8.
go back to reference White RA (1988) The effect of porosity and biomaterial on the healing and long-term mechanical properties of vascular prostheses. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 34:95–100 White RA (1988) The effect of porosity and biomaterial on the healing and long-term mechanical properties of vascular prostheses. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 34:95–100
9.
go back to reference Taylor DF, Smith FB (1972) Porous methyl methacrylate as an implant material. J Biomed Mater Res Symp 2:467–479 Taylor DF, Smith FB (1972) Porous methyl methacrylate as an implant material. J Biomed Mater Res Symp 2:467–479
10.
go back to reference Long J, Tan E, Uitto J, DeSantis S, Shors E, Gebre B, Nelson R, Klein S, Goldberg L, White R (1982) Implant microstructure and collagen synthesis. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 28:195–199PubMed Long J, Tan E, Uitto J, DeSantis S, Shors E, Gebre B, Nelson R, Klein S, Goldberg L, White R (1982) Implant microstructure and collagen synthesis. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 28:195–199PubMed
11.
go back to reference Homsy CA, Kent JN, Hinds EC (1973) Materials for oral implantation—biological and functional criteria. J Am Dental Assoc 86:817–832 Homsy CA, Kent JN, Hinds EC (1973) Materials for oral implantation—biological and functional criteria. J Am Dental Assoc 86:817–832
12.
go back to reference Williams DF (1973) The response of the body environment to implants. In: Williams DF, Roaf R (eds) Implants in surgery. WB Saunders, London, pp 203–297 Williams DF (1973) The response of the body environment to implants. In: Williams DF, Roaf R (eds) Implants in surgery. WB Saunders, London, pp 203–297
13.
go back to reference Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Hermanns B, Klinge U (2002) Influence of implantation interval on the long-term biocompatibility of surgical mesh. Br J Surg 89:1043–1048PubMed Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Hermanns B, Klinge U (2002) Influence of implantation interval on the long-term biocompatibility of surgical mesh. Br J Surg 89:1043–1048PubMed
14.
go back to reference Staskin DR, Plzak L (2002) Synthetic slings: pros and cons. Curr Urol Rep 3:414–417PubMed Staskin DR, Plzak L (2002) Synthetic slings: pros and cons. Curr Urol Rep 3:414–417PubMed
Metadata
Title
In vivo comparison of suburethral sling materials
Authors
M. Slack
J. S. Sandhu
D. R. Staskin
R. C. Grant
Publication date
01-02-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 2/2006
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1320-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2006

International Urogynecology Journal 2/2006 Go to the issue