Anzeige
Erschienen in:
01.07.2007
Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 7/2007
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Background
Placement of an intraperitoneal prosthetic is required for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. The biocompatibility of these prosthetics determines the host’s inflammatory response, scar plate formation, tissue ingrowth, and subsequent mesh performance, including prosthetic compliance and prevention of hernia recurrence. We evaluated the host response to intraperitoneal placement of several prosthetics currently used in clinical practice.
Methods
A 4-cm × 4-cm piece of mesh was implanted on intact peritoneum in New Zealand white rabbits. The mesh types included expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) (DualMesh®), ePTFE and polypropylene (Composix®, heavyweight polypropylene), polypropylene and oxidized regenerated cellulose (Proceed®, midweight polypropylene), and polypropylene (Marlex®, heavyweight polypropylene). At four months, standard hematoxylin and eosin and Milligan’s trichrome stains of the mesh-tissue interaction were analyzed by three observers blinded to the mesh types. Each specimen was evaluated for scar plate formation, inflammatory response, and tissue ingrowth. Each of these three categories was graded on a standard scale of 1–4 (1 = normal tissue and 4 = severe inflammatory response). The scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum test with p < 0.05 as significant.
Results
Ten samples of each mesh type were evaluated. There was no difference in tissue incorporation between the groups. The mean scar plate formation was greater in the heavyweight polypropylene meshes than for DualMesh (p = 0.04). With Proceed, the reduction in scar plate formation compared with that for Composix and Marlex approached statistical significance (p = 0.07). The mean number of inflammatory cells was greater around the ePTFE when compared with the midweight polypropylene (p = 0.02) but equal to the other meshes.
Conclusions
The four prosthetic materials evaluated in this study demonstrate comparable host biocompatibility as evidenced by the tissue ingrowth. Scar plate formation around DualMesh was significantly less than that around Composix and Marlex. Interestingly, more inflammatory cells were noted surrounding the DualMesh which was equal to that of the heavyweight meshes. Proceed, a midweight polypropylene mesh, has the potential for improved patient tolerance compared to heavyweight polypropylene meshes based on its favorable histologic findings.