Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgical Endoscopy
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2012

01.02.2012 | New Technology

A review of the composition, characteristics, and effectiveness of barrier mesh prostheses utilized for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

verfasst von: Corey R. Deeken, Keith M. Faucher, Brent D. Matthews

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 2/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the components that comprise each of the eight barrier mesh prostheses commonly utilized for LVHR and to review the current literature related to the characteristics and effectiveness of these materials to guide the general surgeon in selecting the most appropriate material for LVHR.

Methods

Composite prostheses with permanent barriers (Bard™ Composix™ E/X, Bard™ Composix™ L/P, and DUALMESH® Biomaterial) were compared to composite prostheses with absorbable barriers (C-QUR™ Mesh, PROCEED™ Surgical Mesh, Bard™ Sepramesh™ IP Composite, Parietex™ Composite, and PHYSIOMESH™) using scanning electron microscopy and a review of the current preclinical and clinical literature.

Results

Clinical studies and preclinical animal models have attempted to determine the adhesion characteristics and effectiveness of barrier mesh prostheses available for ventral hernia repair applications. However, it is difficult to make any definitive statements about the adhesion characteristics and effectiveness of these materials because all meshes were not included in all studies and likewise not compared under identical conditions. Overall, Parietex™ Composite and DUALMESH® Biomaterial were cited most frequently for improvement of adhesion characteristics, followed closely by Bard™ Sepramesh™ IP Composite and C-QUR™ Mesh. Bard™ Composix™, PROCEED™ Surgical Mesh, and uncoated polypropylene were cited most frequently as having the most tenacious and extensive adhesions.

Conclusions

Differences observed between the various barrier prostheses are likely attributable to the chemical composition of the barrier or the conditions required for resorption and metabolism of the barrier components. It is likely that the components of these barriers incite a wide range of inflammatory responses resulting in the range of adhesion coverage and tenacity observed in the preclinical and clinical studies reviewed. Clinical trials are needed to more appropriately define the clinical effectiveness of these barriers.
Literatur
1.
Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583PubMed
2.
Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years’ experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238:391–399PubMed
3.
Pierce RA, Spitler JA, Frisella MM, Matthews BD, Brunt LM (2007) Pooled data analysis of laparoscopic vs. open ventral hernia repair: 14 years of patient data accrual. Surg Endosc 21:378–386PubMedCrossRef
4.
Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, Henderson SC, Perry S (1998) Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. J Am Coll Surg 186:1–9PubMedCrossRef
5.
Gray SH, Vick CC, Graham LA, Finan KR, Neumayer LA, Hawn MT (2008) Risk of complications from enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection during elective hernia repair. Arch Surg 143:582–586PubMedCrossRef
6.
Halm JA, de Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2007) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31:423–429PubMedCrossRef
7.
Usher FC, Ochsner J, Tuttle LJ (1958) Use of Marlex mesh in the repair of incisional hernias. Am Surg 24:969–974PubMed
8.
(2007) PROCEED Surgical mesh instructions for use
9.
(2005) Sepramesh IP composite instructions for use
10.
Pierce RA, Perrone J, Nimeri A, Sexton J, Walcutt J, Frisella M, Matthews B (2009) 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. Surg Innov 16:46–54PubMedCrossRef
11.
(2011) PHYSIOMESH instructions for use. Ethicon, Inc
12.
Tingstedt B, Isaksson K, Andersson E, Andersson R (2007) Prevention of abdominal adhesions—present state and what’s beyond the horizon? Eur Surg Res 39:259–268PubMedCrossRef
13.
Schreinemacher MH, Emans PJ, Gijbels MJ, Greve JW, Beets GL, Bouvy ND (2009) Degradation of mesh coatings and intraperitoneal adhesion formation in an experimental model. Br J Surg 96:305–313PubMedCrossRef
14.
(2005) Bard* Composix E/X mesh instructions for use
15.
(2006) Composix L/P instructions for use. CR Bard
16.
Deeken CR, Abdo MS, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2011) Physicomechanical evaluation of absorbable and nonabsorbable barrier composite meshes for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 25:1541–1552PubMedCrossRef
17.
(2007) DualMesh biomaterial instructions for use
18.
(2008) Gore DUALMESH PLUS biomaterial instructions for use
19.
Fox C et al (1991) Infection-resistant compositions, medical devices and surfaces and methods for preparing the same. U.S. Patent #5019096
20.
Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE (2004) Biomaterials science. Academic Press, San Diego
21.
22.
Turaev A (1995) Dependence of the biodegradability of carboxymethylcellulose on its supermolecular structure and molecular parameters. Chem Nat Compds 31:254–259CrossRef
23.
Yamaoka T, Tabata Y, Ikada Y (1995) Fate of water-soluble polymers administered via different routes. J Pharm Sci 84:349–354PubMedCrossRef
24.
Earle DB, Mark LA (2008) Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am 88:179–201PubMedCrossRef
25.
(2009) C-QUR mesh instructions for use
26.
27.
Kabara J, Swieczkowski D, Conley AJ, Truant J (1972) Fatty acids and derivatives as antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2:23–28PubMed
28.
Thormar H, Isaacs CE, Brown HR, Barshatzky MR, Pessolano T (1987) Inactivation of enveloped viruses and killing of cells by fatty acids and monoglycerides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 31:27–31PubMed
29.
Ferrucci L, Cherubini A, Bandinelli S, Bartali B, Corsi A, Lauretani F, Martin A, Andres-Lacueva C, Senin U, Guralnik JM (2006) Relationship of plasma polyunsaturated fatty acids to circulating inflammatory markers. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:439–446PubMedCrossRef
30.
Arita M, Yoshida M, Hong S, Tjonahen E, Glickman JN, Petasis NA, Blumberg RS, Serhan CN (2005) Resolvin E1, an endogenous lipid mediator derived from omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid, protects against 2,4,6-trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced colitis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:7671–7676PubMedCrossRef
31.
(2010) Parietex composite instructions for use
32.
Ory F et al (2002) Composite prosthesis for preventing post-surgical adhesions and method for obtaining same. U.S. Patent #09463313
33.
Tayot J et al (2002) Collagenic material useful in particular for preventing post-operative adhesions. U.S. Patent #6391939
34.
van Amerongen MJ, Harmsen MC, Petersen AH, Kors G, van Luyn MJ (2006) The enzymatic degradation of scaffolds and their replacement by vascularized extracellular matrix in the murine myocardium. Biomaterials 27:2247–2257PubMedCrossRef
35.
Campbell M (1995) Biochemistry. Saunders, New York
36.
Boland ED, Coleman BD, Barnes CP, Simpson DG, Wnek GE, Bowlin GL (2005) Electrospinning polydioxanone for biomedical applications. Acta Biomater 1:115–123PubMedCrossRef
37.
Pillai CK, Sharma CP (2010) Review paper: absorbable polymeric surgical sutures: chemistry, production, properties, biodegradability, and performance. J Biomater Appl 25:291–366PubMedCrossRef
38.
Ashton W et al (1968) Oxidized cellulose product and method for preparing the same. U.S. Patent #3364200
39.
Boardman F et al (1993) Cellulose oxidation by a perfluoronated hydrocarbon solution of nitrogen dioxide. U.S. Patent #5180398
40.
Wiseman D et al (2003) Bioabsorbable medical devices from oxidized polysaccharides. U.S. Patent #20030073663
41.
Dimitrijevich SD, Tatarko M, Gracy RW, Linsky CB, Olsen C (1990) Biodegradation of oxidized regenerated cellulose. Carbohydr Res 195:247–256PubMedCrossRef
42.
Dimitrijevich SD, Tatarko M, Gracy RW, Wise GE, Oakford LX, Linsky CB, Kamp L (1990) In vivo degradation of oxidized, regenerated cellulose. Carbohydr Res 198:331–341PubMedCrossRef
43.
Nary FH, Matsumoto MA, Batista AC, Lopes LC, de Goes FC, Consolaro A (2002) Comparative study of tissue response to polyglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910 and polytetrafluoroethylene suture materials in rats. Braz Dent J 13:86–91
44.
Arnaud JP, Hennekinne-Mucci S, Pessaux P, Tuech JJ, Aube C (2003) Ultrasound detection of visceral adhesion after intraperitoneal ventral hernia treatment: a comparative study of protected versus unprotected meshes. Hernia 7:85–88PubMedCrossRef
45.
Cobb WS, Harris JB, Lokey JS, McGill ES, Klove KL (2003) Incisional herniorrhaphy with intraperitoneal composite mesh: a report of 95 cases. Am Surg 69:784–787PubMed
46.
Koehler RH, Begos D, Berger D, Carey S, LeBlanc K, Park A, Ramshaw B, Smoot R, Voeller G (2003) Minimal adhesions to ePTFE mesh after laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair: reoperative findings in 65 cases. JSLS 7:335–340PubMed
47.
Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133:378–382PubMedCrossRef
48.
Jenkins ED, Yom V, Melman L, Brunt LM, Eagon JC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2010) Prospective evaluation of adhesion characteristics to intraperitoneal mesh and adhesiolysis-related complications during laparoscopic re-exploration after prior ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 24:3002–3007PubMedCrossRef
49.
Chelala E, Debardemaeker Y, Elias B, Charara F, Dessily M, Alle JL (2010) Eighty-five redo surgeries after 733 laparoscopic treatments for ventral and incisional hernia: adhesion and recurrence analysis. Hernia 14:123–129PubMedCrossRef
50.
Wassenaar EB, Schoenmaeckers EJ, Raymakers JT, Rakic S (2010) Subsequent abdominal surgery after laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh: a single institution experience with 72 reoperations. Hernia 14:137–142PubMedCrossRef
51.
Duffy AJ, Hogle NJ, LaPerle KM, Fowler DL (2004) Comparison of two composite meshes using two fixation devices in a porcine laparoscopic ventral hernia repair model. Hernia 8:358–364PubMedCrossRef
52.
McGinty JJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, Fowler DL (2005) A comparative study of adhesion formation and abdominal wall ingrowth after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in a porcine model using multiple types of mesh. Surg Endosc 19:786–790PubMedCrossRef
53.
Jacob BP, Hogle NJ, Durak E, Kim T, Fowler DL (2007) Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus proceed versus parietex composite. Surg Endosc 21:629–633PubMedCrossRef
54.
Gonzalez R, Rodeheaver GT, Moody DL, Foresman PA, Ramshaw BJ (2004) Resistance to adhesion formation: a comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity. Hernia 8:213–219PubMedCrossRef
55.
Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delaney JP (2010) Visceral adhesions to hernia prostheses. Hernia 14:375–381PubMedCrossRef
56.
Kayaoglu HA, Ozkan N, Hazinedaroglu SM, Ersoy OF, Erkek AB, Koseoglu RD (2005) Comparison of adhesive properties of five different prosthetic materials used in hernioplasty. J Invest Surg 18:89–95PubMedCrossRef
57.
Matthews BD, Mostafa G, Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, Austin C, Norton HJ, Heniford BT (2005) Evaluation of adhesion formation and host tissue response to intra-abdominal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh and composite prosthetic mesh. J Surg Res 123:227–234PubMedCrossRef
58.
Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Pollinger HS, Backus CL, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114:126–132PubMedCrossRef
59.
Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Cristiano JA, Paton BL, Norton HJ, Peindl RD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Comparative evaluation of adhesion formation, strength of ingrowth, and textile properties of prosthetic meshes after long-term intra-abdominal implantation in a rabbit. J Surg Res 140:6–11PubMedCrossRef
60.
Greenawalt KE, Butler TJ, Rowe EA, Finneral AC, Garlick DS, Burns JW (2000) Evaluation of Sepramesh biosurgical composite in a rabbit hernia repair model. J Surg Res 94:92–98PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
A review of the composition, characteristics, and effectiveness of barrier mesh prostheses utilized for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair
verfasst von
Corey R. Deeken
Keith M. Faucher
Brent D. Matthews
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2012
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1899-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2012

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2012 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Risk factors in patient safety: minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery

OriginalPaper

Adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for colorectal surgery at academic teaching hospitals and impact on total length of hospital stay

Erratum

Erratum to: Capnographic monitoring for carbon dioxide insufflation during endoscopic submucosal dissection: comparison of transcutaneous and end-tidal capnometers

OriginalPaper

Therapeutic options for iatrogenic colon perforation: feasibility of endoscopic clip closure and predictors of the need for early surgery

Dynamic Manuscript

Pure transvesical NOTES uterine horn resection in swine as an appendectomy model

OriginalPaper

Selective tissue elevation by pressure for endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal adenoma: first clinical trial

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.