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
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 3/2005

01-10-2005 | Original Article

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

Author: Ronald N. Kaleya

Published in: Hernia | Issue 3/2005

Login to get access

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.
Literature
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 343:392–398CrossRefPubMed
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 176:228–234PubMed
3.
4.
George CD, Ellis H (1986) The results of incisional hernia repair: a twelve year review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 68:185–187PubMed
5.
Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T (2003) Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time? A population-based analysis. Ann Surg 237:129–135CrossRefPubMed
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 89:50–56CrossRefPubMed
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 167:855–859CrossRefPubMed
8.
Anthony T, Bergen PC, Kim LT et al (2000) Factors affecting recurrence following incisional herniorrhaphy. World J Surg 24:95–100; discussion 101CrossRefPubMed
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 16:1542–1546CrossRefPubMed
10.
Jenkins SD, Klamer TW, Parteka JJ, Condon RE (1983) A comparison of prosthetic materials used to repair abdominal wall defects. Surgery 94:392–398PubMed
11.
Langer S, Christiansen J (1985) Long-term results after incisional hernia repair. Acta Chir Scand 151:217–219PubMed
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
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 166:490–494CrossRefPubMed
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 186:352–367CrossRefPubMed
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 12:121–135PubMed
16.
Besim H, Yalcin Y, Hamamci O et al (2002) Prevention of intraabdominal adhesions produced by polypropylene mesh. Eur Surg Res 34:239–243CrossRefPubMed
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 64:144–146PubMed
18.
Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133:378–382CrossRefPubMed
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 6:171–174CrossRefPubMed
20.
Harper C (2001) Permacol: clinical experience with a new biomaterial. Hosp Med 62:90–95PubMed
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 7:130CrossRefPubMed
22.
Malazgirt Z, Ulusoy AN, Gok Y, karagoz F, Tac K (2000) Bioabsorbable membrane prevents adhesions to polypropylene mesh in rats. Hernia 4:129–133CrossRef
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 77:48–51PubMed
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 23:240–249PubMedCrossRef
25.
James NL, Poole-Warren LA, Schindhelm K et al (1991) Comparative evaluation of treated bovine pericardium as a xenograft for hernia repair. Biomaterials 12:801–809CrossRefPubMed
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 137:342–344CrossRefPubMed
27.
Law NW, Ellis H (1988) Adhesion formation and peritoneal healing on prosthetic materials. Clin Mater 3:95–101CrossRef
28.
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 16:571–584CrossRefPubMed
30.
Simmermacher RK, Schakenraad JM, Bleichrodt RP (1994) Reherniation after repair of the abdominal wall with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. J Am Coll Surg 178:613–616PubMed
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 3:315–322CrossRefPubMed
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 34:167–171CrossRefPubMed
34.
Cumberland VH (1952) Preliminary report on the use of prefabricated nylon weave in the repair of ventral hernias. Med J Aust 1:143–144PubMed
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
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of implant/host tissue interactions following intraperitoneal implantation of porcine dermal collagen prosthesis in the rat
Author
Ronald N. Kaleya
Publication date
01-10-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Hernia / Issue 3/2005
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-005-0003-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2005

Hernia 3/2005 Go to the issue

Original Article

Surgeon perspectives on options for ventral abdominal wall hernia repair: results of a postal questionnaire

Case Report

Bochdalek’s hernia in an adult with colon necrosis

Case Report

Endometriosis of the round ligament: description of a clinical case and review of the literature

Original Article

Incisional hernia—comparison of mesh repair with Cardiff repair: an university hospital experience

Letter to the Editor

Coskun repair of inguinal hernia: is it really new?

Original Article

Incisional Hernia Repair in Renal Transplantation Patients