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
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 1/2017

01-02-2017 | Original Article

Adhesion prevention in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study comparing three lightweight porous meshes recommended for intraperitoneal use

Authors: L. D’Amore, F. Ceci, S. Mattia, M. Fabbi, P. Negro, F. Gossetti

Published in: Hernia | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In ventral hernia repair, when prosthetic material is placed intraperitoneally, it may lead to an inflammatory reaction resulting in adhesions between the mesh and abdominal viscera. Several meshes have been developed to minimize this process. In this experimental study, the ability of different combined meshes to attenuate the adhesion formation was examined.

Methods

Three commercially available lightweight porous combined meshes were placed intraperitoneally to repair an abdominal wall defect in rats: DynaMesh-IPOM (PVDF + PP), TiMesh (titanium-coated filament PP) and C-QUR/FX (omega-3 fatty acid-coated filament PP). The DynaMesh-CICAT (PVDF) was implanted in the control group. Adhesion formation was macroscopically evaluated and scored after 7 and 21 days.

Results

All animals except two presented intra-abdominal adhesions. None of the meshes examined in the study demonstrated to prevent adhesions. C-QUR/FX reduced adhesion formation at 7 days’ follow-up compared with all other meshes but by 21 days this effect was diminished. Between 7 and 21 days adhesion extension significantly decreased for TiMesh. TAS did not show significant modifications between 7 and 21 days’ follow-up for each mesh.

Conclusions

The combined porous meshes tested in the present study demonstrated to reduce but not to prevent the adhesion formation, even if with some differences. Combined porous meshes could be chosen instead of simple meshes for retro-rectus preperitoneal prosthetic ventral hernia repair.
Literature
1.
Conze J, Binnebosel M, Junge K, Schumpelick V (2010) Incisional hernia. How do I do it? Standard surgical approach. Chirurg 81:192–200CrossRefPubMed
2.
Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, Seiler CM, Miserez M (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(3):CD007781
3.
Halm JA, de Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2007) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31:423–429 (discussion 430) CrossRefPubMed
4.
Coda A, Lamberti R, Martorana S (2012) Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial. Hernia 1:15–21
5.
Robinson TN, Clarke JH, Schoen J, Walsh MD (2005) Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair: events reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Surg Endosc 19:1556–1560CrossRefPubMed
6.
Eriksen JR, Gogenur I, Rosenberg J (2007) Choice of mesh for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 11:481–492CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delany JP (2010) Visceral adhesions to hernia prostheses. Hernia 14:375–381CrossRefPubMed
8.
Vogels RRM, van Barneveld KWY, Bosman JWAM, Bets 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
9.
Dilege E, Coskun H, Gunduz B, Sakiz D, Mihmanli M (2006) Prevention of adhesion to prosthetic mesh in incisional ventral hernias: comparison of different barriers in an experimental model. Eur Surg Res 38:358–364CrossRefPubMed
10.
Schreinemacher MHF, Emans PJ, Gijbels MJJ, Greve JWM, Beets GL, Bouvy ND (2009) Degradation of mesh coatings and intraperitoneal adhesion formation in an experimental model. Br J Surg 96:305–313CrossRefPubMed
11.
Konerding MA, Chanterau P, Delventhal V, Holste JL, Ackermann M (2012) Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of abdominal wall compliance with intraperitoneal onlay mesh implants in rabbits: a comparison of six different state-of-the-art meshes. Med Eng Phys 34:806–816CrossRefPubMed
12.
Schreinemacher MHF, van Barneveld KWY, Dikmans REG, Gijbels MJJ, Greve JWM, Bouvy ND (2013) Coated meshes for hernia repair provide comparable intraperitoneal adhesion prevention. Surg Endosc 27:4202–4209CrossRefPubMed
13.
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B (2012) Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes. Hernia 16:251–258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delaney JP (2007) Experimental evaluation of four biologic prostheses for ventral hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1275–1285CrossRefPubMed
15.
Garrard CL, Clement RH, Nannej L, Davidson JM, Richards WO (1999) Adhesion formation is reduced after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:10–13CrossRefPubMed
16.
Baptista ML, Bonsack ME, Felemovicious I, Delaney JP (2000) Abdominal adhesions to prosthetic mesh evaluated by laparoscopy and electron microscopy. J Am Coll Surg 190:271–280CrossRefPubMed
17.
Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Backus CL, Kerche KW, Heniford BT (2002) Comparison of adhesion formation to the intra-abdominal mesh after laparoscopic adhesiolysis in the New Zealand white rabbit. Am Surg 68:936–940PubMed
18.
Conze J, Junge K, Weiss C, Oettinger A, Schumpelick V (2008) New polymer for intra-abdominal meshes—PVDF copolymer. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 87:321–328CrossRefPubMed
19.
Scheidbach H, Tannapfel A, Schmidt U, Lippert H, Kockerling F (2004) Influence of titanium coating on the biocompatibility of a heavyweight polypropylene mesh. Eur Surg Res 36:313–317CrossRefPubMed
20.
Boutros C, Somasundar P, Razzak A, Helton S, Espat NJ (2010) Omega-3 fatty acids: investigations from cytokines regulation to pancreatic cancer gene suppression. Arch Surg 145:515–520CrossRefPubMed
21.
Junge K, Binnebosel M, Rosch R, Jansen M, Kammer D, Otto J, Schumpelick V, Klinge U (2009) Adhesion formation on polyvinylidenfluoride/polypropylene mesh for intra-abdominal placement in a rodent animal model. Surg Endosc 23:327–333CrossRefPubMed
22.
Bellon JM, Jurado F, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Lopez R, Carrera-Sanmartin A, Bujan J (2002) The structure of a biomaterial rather than its chemical composition modulates the repair process at the peritoneal level. Am J Surg 184:154–159CrossRefPubMed
23.
Pierce RA, Perrone JM, Nimeri A, Sexon JA, Walcutt J, Frisella M, Matthews BD (2009) 120-Day comparative analysis of adhesion grade and quality, mesh contraction and tissue response to a novel omega-3 fatty acid bioabsorbable barrier macroporous mesh after intraperitoneal placement. Surg Inn 16:45–54
24.
Schug-Pass C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Kockerling R (2008) Does the additional application of a polylactide film (SurgiWrap) to a lightweight mesh (TiMesh) reduce adhesion after laparoscopic intraperitoneal implantation procedures? Experimental results obtained with the laparoscopic porcine model. Surg Endosc 22:2433–2439CrossRefPubMed
25.
Berger D, Bientzle M (2007) Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: a single surgeon’s experience in 66 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1668–1673CrossRefPubMed
26.
Berger D, Bientzle M (2009) Polyvinylidene fluoride: a suitable mesh material for laparoscopic incisional and parastomal hernia repair! A prospective, observational study with 344 patients. Hernia 13:167–172CrossRefPubMed
27.
Fortenly RH, Petter-Puchner AH, Glaser KS, Offner F, Benesch T, Rohr M (2010) Adverse effects of polyvinylidene fluoride-coated polypropylene mesh used for laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay repair of incisional hernia. Br J Surg 97:1140–1145CrossRef
28.
Klosterhalfen B (2011) Letter2: adverse effects of polyvinylidene fluoride-coated polypropylene mesh used for laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay repair of incisional hernia. Br J Surg 98:159–160CrossRefPubMed
29.
Jamry A, Jalynski M, Piskorz L, Brocki M (2013) Assessment of adhesion formation after laparoscopic intraperitoneal implantation of Dynamesh IPOM mesh. Arch Med Sci 20:487–492CrossRef
30.
Sommer T, Friis-Andersen H (2013) DynaMesh in the repair of laparoscopic ventral hernia. A prospective study. Hernia 17:613–618CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Adhesion prevention in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study comparing three lightweight porous meshes recommended for intraperitoneal use
Authors
L. D’Amore
F. Ceci
S. Mattia
M. Fabbi
P. Negro
F. Gossetti
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Hernia / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1541-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Hernia 1/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Quality of life and outcomes for femoral hernia repair: does laparoscopy have an advantage?

Original Article

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after total extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP)

Original Article

Femoral hernia: reappraisal of low repair with the conical mesh plug

Original Article

Randomized trial comparing self gripping semi re-absorbable mesh (PROGRIP) with polypropylene mesh in open inguinal hernioplasty: the 6 years result

Original Article

First 200 consecutive transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic TEPs

Original Article

No enterocutaneous fistula development in a cohort of 695 patients after incisional hernia repair using intraperitoneal uncoated polyproylene mesh