Chemical Adhesion Barriers: Do They Affect the Intraperitoneal Behavior of a Composite Mesh?

ABSTRACT Introduction: The intraperitoneal behavior of a prosthetic material used to repair a hernia is key to the success of the postimplant repair process. This study was designed to laparoscopically examine the real-time behavior of three composite meshes incorporating a chemical adhesion barrier when placed in contact with the visceral peritoneum. Material and Methods: The defects of 7 × 5 cm were created in the ventral abdominal wall of 18 New Zealand White rabbits and repaired using Parietex Composite® (n = 6), Sepramesh® (n = 6), or Proceed® (n = 6). At 24 hr, 3, 7, and 14 days postimplant, adhesion formation was quantified by subjecting photographs obtained during laparoscopy to image analysis. At 14 days, specimens of the implants and surrounding host tissue were obtained for histologic, morphometric, and immunohistochemical analyses. Results: There were no cases of infection and/or rejection of the implant. Adhesion formation followed by laparoscopy 3, 7, and 14 days after implant was significantly lower for Parietex® than the other biomaterials. Degradation of the chemical barrier occurred earliest in Sepramesh®, this barrier being most stable at 14 days for the Parietex® implants. Macrophage counts were significantly greater for Sepramesh®. The thickness of the neoformed peritoneum formed on the three implants varied significantly (p < .05): 276.89 ± 38.87 μm, 84.49 ± 19.05 μm, and 161.97 ± 47.05 μm, respectively for Paritex®, Sepramesh®, and Proceed®. Conclusions: (a) The most stable barrier against biodegradation was that of Parietex®; (b) the first postimplant week was the most critical period for adhesion formation; and (c) all three biomaterials showed good intraperitoneal behavior.

[1]  J. Delaney,et al.  Visceral adhesions to hernia prostheses , 2010, Hernia.

[2]  G. Pascual,et al.  Peritoneal adhesion formation and reformation tracked by sequential laparoscopy: optimizing the time point for adhesiolysis. , 2010, Surgery.

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

[4]  F. Sommerer,et al.  The use of composite meshes in laparoscopic repair of abdominal wall hernias: are there differences in biocompatibily? , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

[5]  M. Hawn,et al.  Surgical progress in inguinal and ventral incisional hernia repair. , 2008, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[6]  J. Bellón.  Abdominal wall hernia repair: a comparison of Sepramesh and Parietex composite mesh in a rabbit hernia model. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[7]  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.

[8]  J. Delaney,et al.  Prevention of adhesions to polypropylene mesh. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[9]  A. Wimo,et al.  Cost analysis of incisional hernia repair by suture or mesh , 2003, Hernia.

[10]  J. Bellón,et al.  The structure of a biomaterial rather than its chemical composition modulates the repair process at the peritoneal level. , 2002, American journal of surgery.

[11]  D. Garlick,et al.  Evaluation of sepramesh biosurgical composite in a rabbit hernia repair model. , 2000, The Journal of surgical research.

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

[13]  J. Delaney,et al.  Seprafilm reduces adhesions to polypropylene mesh. , 2000, Surgery.

[14]  C. Sills,et al.  Small bowel obstruction resulting from mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernia repair. , 2000, Surgery.

[15]  A. Rogers,et al.  Enterocutaneous fistula 14 years after prosthetic mesh repair of a ventral incisional hernia: a life-long risk? , 2000, Surgery.

[16]  S. Mutsaers,et al.  Mesothelial regeneration is not dependent on subserosal cells , 2000, The Journal of pathology.

[17]  G. Pascual,et al.  Evaluation of the acute scarring response to the implant of different types of biomaterial in the abdominal wall , 2000, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[18]  P. Goh,et al.  Prevention of adhesions by Seprafilm, an absorbable adhesion barrier: an incisional hernia model in rats. , 1997, The American surgeon.

[19]  J. Bellón,et al.  Effect of phosphatidylcholine on the process of peritoneal adhesion following implantation of a polypropylene mesh prosthesis. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[20]  J. Bellón,et al.  Comparison of a new type of polytetrafluoroethylene patch (Mycro Mesh) and polypropylene prosthesis (Marlex) for repair of abdominal wall defects. , 1996, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[21]  J. Bellón,et al.  Interface formed between visceral peritoneum and experimental polypropylene or polytetrafluoroethylene abdominal wall implants , 1996 .

[22]  H. E. Young,et al.  Effect of rat mesenchymal stem cells on development of abdominal adhesions after surgery. , 1996, The Journal of surgical research.

[23]  D. Driscoll,et al.  Use of a mesh for musculoaponeurotic defects of the abdominal wall in cancer surgery and the risk of bowel fistulas. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[24]  I. Lichtenstein,et al.  Experimental evaluation of a new composite mesh with the selective property of incorporation to the abdominal wall without adhering to the intestines. , 1994, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[25]  R. Condon,et al.  Double-layer prostheses for repair of abdominal wall defects in a rabbit model. , 1993, The Journal of surgical research.

[26]  J. Naim,et al.  Reduction of postoperative adhesions to Marlex mesh using experimental adhesion barriers in rats. , 1993, Journal of laparoendoscopic surgery.