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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Surgery
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 8/2006

01-08-2006

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

Authors: Dirk Weyhe, MD, Inge Schmitz, PhD, Orlin Belyaev, MD, Robert Grabs, Klaus-Michael Müller, MD, Waldemar Uhl, MD, Volker Zumtobel, MD

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 8/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Mesh implantation is a standard procedure in hernia repair. It provides low recurrence rate but increases complication rate due to foreign-body reaction induced by alloplastic materials in surrounding tissues. It is believed that biocompatibility of meshes may be improved by reducing their weight per meter squared (m2) and altering the implant structure.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of weight and structure as determinants of mesh biocompatibility.

Method

Thirty-six Wistar rats were studied. In 12 animals, conventional polypropylene (heavy) meshes (HM) were implanted; in other 12, material-reduced (light) microporous polypropylene meshes (LM); and the remaining 12 served as a sham-operated control group. Meshes were explanted after 21 and 90 days (6 animals per group). All samples were examined by light and electron microscopies. Integration of meshes in surrounding tissue, inflammatory response, fibrotic reactions, and structural changes were recorded. Quantification of the inflammatory response was achieved by CD-68 marking of macrophages and counting their number per surface unit.

Results

After 21 days, there was no significant difference in thickness of surrounding connective tissue between meshes in all groups studied. After 90 days, thickness of connective tissue decreased in both groups, and fibrotic reaction in the mesh bed was significantly less in the HM group. Total amount of macrophages per millimeter squared (mm2) decreased with time in HM and LM samples but was significantly lower in the HM group on day 21 (43.5%) and day 90 (46.7%).

Conclusion

This study found worse biocompatibility of LM compared with HM. Thus, the amount of implanted mesh was not the main determinant of biocompatibility (expressed as successful incorporation and diminished foreign-body reaction) but the size of the pores.
Literature
1.
2.
Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE. The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature review and clinical experience. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186(3):352–367PubMedCrossRef
3.
Schumpelick V, Conze J, Klinge U. Preperitoneal mesh-plasty in incisional hernia repair. A comparative retrospective study of 272 operated incisional hernias. Chirurg 1996;67:1028–1035PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, et al. Integration of biomaterials implanted into abdominal wall: process of scar formation and macrophage response. Biomaterials 1995;16:381–387PubMedCrossRef
5.
Nyhus LM. Ubiquitous use of prosthetic mesh in inguinal hernia repair: the dilemma. Hernia 2000;4:184–186CrossRef
6.
Bittner R, Leibl B, Kraft K, et al. The laparoscopic hernioplasty (TAPP) – complications and recurrences of 900 operations. Zentralbl Chir 1996;121:313–319PubMed
7.
Hofbauer C, Anderson PV, Juul P. Late mesh rejection as a complication to transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Endosc 1998;12:1164–1165PubMedCrossRef
8.
O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG et al. Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2005;92:166–170PubMedCrossRef
9.
Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Henze U, et al. Morphological correlation of the functional mechanics of the abdominal wall after mesh implantation. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1997;382:87–94
10.
Schumpelick V, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, et al. Minimized polypropylene mesh for preperitoneal net plasty (PNP) of incisional hernias. Chirurg 1999;70:422–430PubMedCrossRef
11.
Coda A, Botto-Micca F, Quaglino F, et al. In vivo tissue reaction to different prosthetic materials in abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia 2000;4:206–211CrossRef
12.
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, et al. Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 1999;165:665–673PubMedCrossRef
13.
Fölscher DJ, Jamali FR, Leroy J, et al. Utility of a new soft, non-woven polypropylene mesh for the transabdominal extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair: preliminary results. Hernia 2000;4:228–233CrossRef
14.
Junge K, Klinge U, Prescher A, et al. Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants. Hernia 2001;5:113–118PubMedCrossRef
15.
Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, et al. Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:129–136PubMedCrossRef
16.
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, et al. Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 1998;164:965–969PubMedCrossRef
17.
Greca FH, de Paula JB, Biondo-Simoes ML, et al. The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects. Hernia 2001;5:59–64PubMedCrossRef
18.
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, et al. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 2002;103:208–214PubMedCrossRef
19.
Rutkow IM, Freehold NJ. The recurrence rate in hernia surgery-how important is it? Arch Surg 1995;130:575–576PubMed
Metadata
Title
Experimental Comparison of Monofile Light and Heavy Polypropylene Meshes: Less Weight Does Not Mean Less Biological Response
Authors
Dirk Weyhe, MD
Inge Schmitz, PhD
Orlin Belyaev, MD
Robert Grabs
Klaus-Michael Müller, MD
Waldemar Uhl, MD
Volker Zumtobel, MD
Publication date
01-08-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 8/2006
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0601-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2006

World Journal of Surgery 8/2006 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

What the Impact Factor Means for Surgery Journals

OriginalPaper

Identification of Patients at Low Risk for Thyroidectomy-Related Hypocalcemia by Intraoperative Quick PTH

ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

“To Afford the Wounded Speedy Assistance”: Dominique Jean Larrey and Napoleon

OriginalPaper

Improved Long-term Survival after Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Modern Era: Retrospective Study from HCV-endemic Areas

OriginalPaper

Postsurgical Infections are Reduced with Specialized Nutrition Support

OriginalPaper

Incurable Stenosing Colorectal Carcinoma: Endoscopic Stent Implantation or Palliative Surgery?