Ultra-Fine Polyethylene Hernia Meshes Improve Biocompatibility and Reduce Intraperitoneal Adhesions in IPOM Position in Animal Models

(1) Introduction: The intraperitoneal onlay mesh technique (IPOM) is widely used to repair incisional hernias. This method has advantages but suffers from complications due to intraperitoneal adhesion formation between the mesh and intestine. An ideal mesh minimizes adhesions and shows good biocompatibility. To address this, newly developed multifilamentous polyethylene (PET) meshes were constructed from sub-macrophage-sized monofilaments and studied regarding biocompatibility and adhesion formation. (2) Methods: We investigated fine (FPET, 72 filaments, 11 µm diameter each) and ultra-fine multifilament (UFPET, 700 filaments, 3 µm diameter each) polyethylene meshes for biocompatibility in subcutaneous implantation in rats. Adhesion formation was analyzed in the IPOM position in rabbits. Geometrically identical mono-filamentous polypropylene (PP) Bard Soft® PP meshes were used for comparison. Histologic and immune-histologic foreign body reactions were assessed in 48 rats after 7 or 21 days (four mesh types, with two different mesh types per rat; n = 6 per mesh type). Additionally, two different mesh types each were placed in the IPOM position in 24 rabbits to compile the Diamond peritoneal adhesion score after the same timeframes. The biocompatibility and adhesion score differences were analyzed with the Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric statistical test. (3) Results: Overall, FPET and, especially, UFPET showed significantly smaller foreign body granulomas compared to PP meshes. Longer observation periods enhanced the differences. Immunohistology showed no significant differences in the cellular immune response and proliferation. UFPET demonstrated significantly reduced peritoneal adhesion formation compared to all other tested meshes after 21 days. (4) Conclusions: Overall, FPET and, especially, UFPET demonstrated their suitability for IPOM hernia meshes in animal models by improving major aspects of the foreign body reaction and reducing adhesion formation.

[1]  D. Bratu,et al.  The use of polypropylene mesh in inguinal hernia surgery: A retrospective study , 2021, Experimental and therapeutic medicine.

[2]  J. Deniset,et al.  Post-Operative Adhesions: A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms , 2021, Biomedicines.

[3]  G. Pascual,et al.  Evaluation of synthetic reticular hybrid meshes designed for intraperitoneal abdominal wall repair: Preclinical and in vitro behavior , 2019, PloS one.

[4]  G. Pascual,et al.  Biomaterial Implants in Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair: A Review on the Importance of the Peritoneal Interface , 2019, Processes.

[5]  U. Neumann,et al.  Improved biocompatibility of profiled sutures through lower macrophages adhesion. , 2018, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[6]  J. Pereira,et al.  Balancing mesh-related complications and benefits in primary ventral and incisional hernia surgery. A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis , 2018, PloS one.

[7]  F. Köckerling,et al.  The Importance of Registries in the Postmarketing Surveillance of Surgical Meshes , 2017, Annals of surgery.

[8]  A. Elías-Zúñiga,et al.  Past, Present and Future of Surgical Meshes: A Review , 2017, Membranes.

[9]  A. Natali,et al.  Synthetic surgical meshes used in abdominal wall surgery: Part I-materials and structural conformation. , 2017, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[10]  M. Fabbi,et al.  Adhesion prevention in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study comparing three lightweight porous meshes recommended for intraperitoneal use , 2017, Hernia.

[11]  J. Klempnauer,et al.  Impairment of the Peritoneal Surface as a Decisive Factor for Intestinal Adhesions in Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Surgery - Introducing a New Rat Model , 2016, International journal of medical sciences.

[12]  U. Neumann,et al.  Analysis of adhesion formation of a new elastic thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) mesh in comparison to polypropylene (PP) meshes in IPOM position. , 2016, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[13]  K. Itani,et al.  Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review. , 2016, Annals of surgery.

[14]  U. Klinge,et al.  Mesh implants: An overview of crucial mesh parameters. , 2015, World journal of gastrointestinal surgery.

[15]  C. Seiler,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  P. Wara,et al.  Intraperitoneal onlay mesh: an experimental study of adhesion formation in a sheep model , 2010, Hernia.

[17]  U. Klinge,et al.  Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: Influence of pore size and surface area , 2004, Hernia.

[18]  J. Sanders,et al.  Tissue response to microfibers of different polymers: polyester, polyethylene, polylactic acid, and polyurethane. , 2002, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[19]  C. E. Stiles,et al.  Tissue response to single-polymer fibers of varying diameters: evaluation of fibrous encapsulation and macrophage density. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[20]  J. Jeekel,et al.  A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  M. Diamond,et al.  A model for sidewall adhesions in the rabbit: Reduction by an absorbable barrier , 1987, Microsurgery.