Physicomechanical evaluation of absorbable and nonabsorbable barrier composite meshes for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the physicomechanical properties of composite prostheses for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) through standard testing and a proposed classification system.MethodsSeven prostheses (four with absorbable barriers and 3 with nonabsorbable barriers) were evaluated. The barrier layer was removed, after which the area of the interstices and the diameter of the filaments were determined. The barrier layer was left intact during thickness, density, suture retention strength, tear resistance, uniaxial tensile, and ball-burst testing. Specimens were oriented parallel or perpendicular to their longest dimension during testing. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s posttest or an unpaired, two-tailed t-test was performed to determine whether differences existed due to mesh or orientation, and a p value <0.05 was considered significant.ResultsSignificant differences were observed between mesh types and due to the orientation of the mesh during testing. Of the absorbable barrier meshes, Bard Sepramesh IP Composite demonstrated the greatest suture retention and tear strengths, followed by C-QUR mesh. Of the permanent barrier meshes, DUALMESH demonstrated the greatest suture retention strength in the perpendicular direction, followed by Bard Composix E/X. DUALMESH and Bard Composix E/X demonstrated equivalent suture retention strength in the parallel direction and equivalent tear resistance in both testing directions. All meshes demonstrated tensile strengths greater than the physiologically relevant range of 16–32 N/cm.ConclusionsThis study provided a basic understanding of how the structural aspects of each mesh design influence functionality. Differences between composite barrier prostheses commonly used for LVHR were observed due to barrier type, mesh type, and orientation. A set of standard testing techniques and a classification system also were presented to define fully the properties of these materials.

[1]  A. Park,et al.  Laparoscopic Repair of Ventral Hernias: Nine Years’ Experience With 850 Consecutive Hernias , 2003, Annals of surgery.

[2]  R. C. Hibbeler.  Engineering mechanics statics SI edition / R.C. Hibbeler , 2001 .

[3]  D. Earle,et al.  Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? , 2008, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[4]  B. Heniford,et al.  Mesh terminology 101 , 2009, Hernia.

[5]  E. Verdaasdonk,et al.  Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Suture Versus Mesh Repair of Incisional Hernia , 2004, Annals of surgery.

[6]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Intraperitoneal Polypropylene Mesh Hernia Repair Complicates Subsequent Abdominal Surgery , 2007, World Journal of Surgery.

[7]  K. Isaksson,et al.  Prevention of Abdominal Adhesions – Present State and What’s beyond the Horizon? , 2007, European Surgical Research.

[8]  G. Beets,et al.  Degradation of mesh coatings and intraperitoneal adhesion formation in an experimental model , 2009, The British journal of surgery.

[9]  Uwe Klinge,et al.  The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair , 2005, Expert review of medical devices.

[10]  S. Perry,et al.  Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. , 1998, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[11]  R. White,et al.  Histopathologic observations after short-term implantation of two porous elastomers in dogs. , 1981, Biomaterials.

[12]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Tensile strength of mesh fixation methods in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[13]  K. Junge,et al.  Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants , 2001, Hernia.

[14]  F. Perkins,et al.  Pain and Functional Impairment 1 Year After Inguinal Herniorrhaphy: A Nationwide Questionnaire Study , 2001, Annals of surgery.

[15]  Brent D. Matthews,et al.  Pooled data analysis of laparoscopic vs. open ventral hernia repair: 14 years of patient data accrual , 2007, Surgical Endoscopy.

[16]  J. Deprest,et al.  Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes , 2009, Hernia.

[17]  R. Pierce,et al.  120-Day Comparative Analysis of Adhesion Grade and Quantity, Mesh Contraction, and Tissue Response to a Novel Omega-3 Fatty Acid Bioabsorbable Barrier Macroporous Mesh After Intraperitoneal Placement , 2009, Surgical innovation.

[18]  B. Matthews,et al.  Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults. , 2005, The Journal of surgical research.

[19]  B. Matthews,et al.  Evaluation of Acute Fixation Strength for Mechanical Tacking Devices and Fibrin Sealant Versus Polypropylene Suture for Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair , 2010, Surgical innovation.

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

[21]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Physiologie des Menschen , 1993, Springer-Lehrbuch.

[22]  G. Welty,et al.  Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes , 2001, Hernia.

[23]  U Klinge,et al.  Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. , 2002, The Journal of surgical research.

[24]  U Klinge,et al.  Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. , 1999, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[25]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Prevention of Adhesion to Prosthetic Mesh: Comparison of Different Barriers Using an Incisional Hernia Model , 2003, Annals of surgery.

[26]  U Klinge,et al.  Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. , 2003, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[27]  F. Costa,et al.  The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects , 2001, Hernia.