Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of new prosthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In hernia repair, particularly laparoscopic hernia repair, direct contact between mesh and abdominal organs cannot always be avoided. Several mesh materials and composite meshes have been developed to decrease subsequent adhesion formation. Recently, new meshes have been introduced. In an experimental rat study, their value was established and compared with that of meshes already available on the market.

Methods

In 200 rats, eight different meshes were placed intraperitoneally and in direct contact with abdominal viscera. The following meshes were tested: polypropylene (Prolene), e-PTFE (Dualmesh), polypropylene– polyglecaprone composite (Ultrapro), titanium–polypropylene composite (Timesh), polypropylene with carboxymethylcellulose–sodium hyaluronate coating (Sepramesh), polyester with collagen-polyethylene glycol–glycerol coating (Parietex Composite), polypropylene–polydioxanone composite with oxidized cellulose coating (Proceed), and bovine pericardium (Tutomesh). At 7 and then at 30 days postoperatively, adhesion formation, mesh incorporation, tensile strength, shrinkage, and infection were scored by two independent observers.

Results

Parietex Composite, Sepramesh, and Tutomesh resulted in decreased surface coverage with adhesions, whereas Prolene, Dualmesh, Ultrapro, Timesh, and Proceed resulted in increased adhesion coverage. Parietex Composite, Prolene, Ultrapro, and Sepramesh resulted in the most mesh incorporation. Dualmesh and Tutomesh resulted in significantly increased shrinkage. There were no differences in mesh infection. Parietex Composite and Dualmesh resulted in a moderate inflammatory reaction, as compared with the mild reaction the other meshes exhibited.

Conclusion

Parietex Composite and Sepramesh combine minimal adhesion formation with maximum mesh incorporation and tensile strength. The authors recommend the use of these meshes for hernia repair in which direct contact with the abdominal viscera cannot be avoided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alimoglu O, Akcakaya A, Sahin M, Unlu Y, Ozkan OV, Sanli E, Eryilmaz R (2003) Prevention of adhesion formations following repair of abdominal wall defects with prosthetic materials (an experimental study). Hepatogastroenterology 50: 725–728

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alponat A, Lakshminarasappa SR, Yavuz N, Goh PM (1997) Prevention of adhesions by Seprafilm, an absorbable adhesion barrier: an incisional hernia model in rats. Am Surg 63: 818–819

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bageacu S, Blanc P, Breton C, Gonzales M, Porcheron J, Chabert M, Balique JG (2002) Laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia: a retrospective study of 159 patients. Surg Endosc 16: 345–348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baptista ML, Bonsack ME, Felemovicius I, Delaney JP (2000) Abdominal adhesions to prosthetic mesh evaluated by laparoscopy and electron microscopy. J Am Coll Surg 190: 271–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Borrazzo EC, Belmont MF, Boffa D, Fowler DL (2004) Effect of prosthetic material on adhesion formation after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in a porcine model. Hernia 8: 108–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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: 578–583, discussion 583–575

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Demir U, Mihmanli M, Coskun H, Dilege E, Kalyoncu A, Altinli E, Gunduz B, Yilmaz B (2005) Comparison of prosthetic materials in incisional hernia repair. Surg Today 35: 223–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. diZerega GS (1997) Biochemical events in peritoneal tissue repair. Eur J Surg Suppl 577:10–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Drollette CM, Badawy SZ (1992) Pathophysiology of pelvic adhesions: modern trends in preventing infertility. J Reprod Med 37: 107–121, discussion 121–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Duffy AJ, Hogle NJ, LaPerle KM, Fowler DL (2004) Comparison of two composite meshes using two fixation devisces in a porcine laparoscopic ventral hernia repair model. Hernia 8(4): 358–364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Duffy DM, diZerega GS (1996) Adhesion controversies: pelvic pain as a cause of adhesions, crystalloids in preventing them. J Reprod Med 41: 19–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellis H (1997) The clinical significance of adhesions: focus on intestinal obstruction. Eur J Surg Suppl 577: 5–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Salerno GM, Filipi CJ, Hunter WJ, Watson P (1994) A laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh technique for the repair of an indirect inguinal hernia. Ann Surg 219: 144–156

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Franz MG, Kuhn MA, Nguyen K, Wang X, Ko F, Wright TE, Robson MC (2001) Transforming growth factor beta-2 lowers the incidence of incisional hernias. J Surg Res 97: 109–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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: 213–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goodney PP, Birkmeyer CM, Birkmeyer JD (2002) Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 137: 1161–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hengirmen S, Cete M, Soran A, Aksoy F, Sencer H, Olcay E (1998) Comparison of meshes for the repair of experimental abdominal wall defects. J Invest Surg 11: 315–325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hodgson NC, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T (2000) The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 231: 436–442

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoer J, Lawong G, Klinge U, Schumpelick V (2002) Factors influencing the development of incisional hernia: a retrospective study of 2,983 laparotomy patients over a period of 10 years. Chirurg 73: 474–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hooker GD, Taylor BM, Driman DK (1999) Prevention of adhesion formation with use of sodium hyaluronate–based bioresorbable membrane in a rat model of ventral hernia repair with polypropylene mesh: a randomized, controlled study. Surgery 125: 211–216

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Henze U, Bhardwaj R, Conze J, Schumpelick V (1997) Morphologic correlation of functional abdominal wall mechanics after mesh implantation. Langenbecks Arch Chir 382: 87–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Law NH, Ellis H (1988) Adhesion formation and peritoneal healing on prosthetic materials. Clin Materials 3: 95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133: 378–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis RT, Wiegand FM (1989) Natural history of vertical abdominal parietal closure: prolene versus Dexon. Can J Surg 32: 196–200

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Luijendijk RW, de Lange DC, Wauters CC, Hop WC, Duron JJ, Pailler JL, Camprodon BR, Holmdahl L, van Geldorp HJ, Jeekel J (1996) Foreign material in postoperative adhesions. Ann Surg 223: 242–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, JN IJ, Boelhouwer RU, de Vries BC, Salu MK, Wereldsma JC, Bruijninckx CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343: 392–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 intraabdominal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh and composite prosthetic mesh. J Surg Res 123: 227–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Pollinger HS, Backus CL, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) Assessment of adhesion formation to intraabdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114: 126–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Menzies D (1993) Postoperative adhesions: their treatment and relevance in clinical practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75: 147–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Menzies D, Ellis H (1990) Intestinal obstruction from adhesions: how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72: 60–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Monk BJ, Berman ML, Montz FJ (1994) Adhesions after extensive gynecologic surgery: clinical significance, etiology, and prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170: 1396–1403

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mudge M, Hughes LE (1985) Incisional hernia: a 10-year prospective study of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg 72: 70–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. National Center for Health Statistics (1996) Combined Surgery Data (NHDS and NSAS) Data Highlights. Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/hdasd/combtab.htm on May 2003

  34. Prismant (2002) National Medical Registration, Utrecht, The Netherlands

  35. Schug-Pass C, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Kockerling F (2004) Biocompatibility of laparoscopically placed intraabdominal meshes. In: Köckerling F (ed) Surgical techniques. Science Med dr. Sperber, Hanover, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sugerman HJ, Kellum JM Jr, Reines HD, DeMaria EJ, Newsome HH, Lowry JW (1996) Greater risk of incisional hernia with morbidly obese than steroid-dependent patients and low recurrence with prefascial polypropylene mesh. Am J Surg 171: 80–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Suslavich FJ, Turner NA, King PS, Brown HK (1989) Intraabdominal adhesions: intraoperative US. Radiology 172: 387–388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    J. W. A. Burger, J. A. Halm, A. R. Wijsmuller, S. ten Raa & J. Jeekel

Authors
  1. J. W. A. Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. A. Halm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. R. Wijsmuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. ten Raa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Jeekel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. W. A. Burger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burger, J.W.A., Halm, J.A., Wijsmuller, A.R. et al. Evaluation of new prosthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 20, 1320–1325 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0706-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0706-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation