Collagen-coated vs noncoated low-weight polypropylene meshes in a sheep model for vaginal surgery. A pilot study

The aims of this study were dual. First, to evaluate the feasibility of a sheep model as an animal model for vaginal surgery with meshes. Second, to compare host response to two low-weight polypropylene (PP) meshes, a noncoated (Soft Prolene™, Gynecare, Ethicon) and a coated mesh with an absorbable hydrophilic film (Ugytex™, Sofradim). Thirty-six 20×20 mm polypropylene meshes (18 coated and 18 noncoated) were surgically implanted by the vaginal route in 12 adult ewes. Meshes were implanted in the anterior (n=12) and the posterior vaginal compartments (n=24). Animals were killed 1 (n=6) and 12 (n=6) weeks after surgery. Postimplantation evaluation included macroscopical examination, histological and immunohistochemical analysis and histomorphometrical measures of the distance between the meshes and the vaginal epithelium. The experimental procedure was feasible in all cases. Vaginal erosions were observed twice as frequently with the noncoated-PP meshes (6/18, 33.3%) as with the coated-PP meshes (3/18, 16.7%), even if that difference was not significant (p=0.4). However, no differences were observed between the two meshes in terms of shrinkage, tissue ingrowth, inflammatory response, and position of the mesh in the vaginal wall. The mechanism involved in the reduction of vaginal erosion could be due to the lesser adhesion of the coated mesh on the vaginal wound during the early postoperative period.

[1]  B. Klosterhalfen,et al.  Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. , 2002, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[2]  J. Bellón,et al.  Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. , 1998, Biomaterials.

[3]  M. Boukerrou,et al.  Tissue integration and tolerance to meshes used in gynecologic surgery: an experimental study. , 2006, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[4]  J. Benson,et al.  Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  Desai Vb Marlex mesh prosthesis for massive vaginal vault prolapse. , 1987 .

[6]  P. Amid Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery , 1997, Hernia.

[7]  T. Robinson,et al.  Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair: events reported to the Food and Drug Administration. , 2005, Surgical endoscopy.

[8]  M. Cervigni,et al.  The use of synthetics in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse , 2001, Current opinion in urology.

[9]  M. Riggs,et al.  Preoperative and postoperative analysis of site‐specific pelvic support defects in 81 women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic reconstruction , 1993, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  B. Klosterhalfen,et al.  [Morphologic correlation of functional abdominal wall mechanics after mesh implantation]. , 1997, Langenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie.

[11]  A. Maclennan,et al.  The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  N. Kohli,et al.  Incidence of recurrent cystocele after anterior colporrhaphy with and without concomitant transvaginal needle suspension. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  N. Hogle,et al.  A comparative study of adhesion formation and abdominal wall ingrowth after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in a porcine model using multiple types of mesh , 2005, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[14]  F. Herbella,et al.  Comparative study of inflammatory response and adhesions formation after fixation of different meshes for inguinal hernia repair in rabbits. , 2005, Acta cirurgica brasileira.

[15]  J. Colling,et al.  Epidemiology of Surgically Managed Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence , 1997, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  J. Deprest,et al.  Comparison of host response to polypropylene and non‐cross‐linked porcine small intestine serosal‐derived collagen implants in a rat model , 2005, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[17]  L. Flint,et al.  Comparison of novel synthetic materials with traditional methods to repair exposed abdominal wall fascial defects. , 1998, Journal of investigative surgery : the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research.

[18]  S. Hazinedaroglu,et al.  Comparison of Adhesive Properties of Five Different Prosthetic Materials Used in Hernioplasty , 2005, Journal of investigative surgery : the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research.

[19]  T. Mussack,et al.  Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. , 2005, European journal of medical research.

[20]  S. Madjar,et al.  Tension-free vaginal tape and percutaneous vaginal tape sling procedures. , 2001, Techniques in urology.