Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene mesh placed intraperitoneally in a New Zealand white rabbit model

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The intraperitoneal application of surgical mesh remains a controversial issue because of possible complications, especially adhesion and fistula formation. This study aimed to assess the potential of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh for intraabdominal implantation.

Methods

Twenty-eight 5 × 5 cm samples of knitted macroporous PTFE mesh and light-weight polypropylene mesh (LW-PP) were implanted intraperitoneally in 14 New Zealand white rabbits in a randomized manner and fixed using eight polypropylene stitches. After 90 days, the adhesion formation, adhesion score, shrinkage, strength of fixation to the abdominal wall, and histologic biocompatibility were assessed.

Results

No intraoperative or anesthesia-related complications or mesh infection were recorded. The average area covered by adhesions was 4.7 ± 7.2% for the PTFE and 36.4 ± 36.1% for the LW-PP. The median adhesion score was 0 for the PTFE and 8 for the LW-PP. Shrinkage was 36.9 ± 12.9% for the PTFE mesh and 12.6 ± 8.72% for the LW-PP. The mesh-to-abdominal wall fixation strength was almost the same for both materials (PTFE 3.6 ± 1.9 vs. LW-PP 3.6 ± 2.9). The inflammatory cell count was almost the same for the two groups, with no statistically significant difference. The width of the inner granuloma was equal (PTFE 10.5 ± 0.9 vs. LW-PP 11.1 ± 0.9). The outer granuloma was reduced significantly in the PTFE group (PTFE 23.0 ± 2.1 vs. LW-PP 33.6 ± 7.9). One of the animals in the PTFE group died on postoperative day 12 because of ileus. The reason was an adhesion of the small intestine to the polypropylene fixation stitch, which caused small intestine strangulation.

Conclusions

The knitted PTFE mesh induces fewer intraperitoneal adhesions of lower density than the light-weight polypropylene mesh. The strength of the knitted PTFE mesh fixation to the abdominal wall is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene mesh, but the shrinkage is greater. The biocompatibility of the knitted PTFE mesh is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene implant.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, de Lange D, Fortelny R, Heikkinen T, Kingsnorth A, Kukleta J, Morales-Conde S, Nordin P, Schumpelick V, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, Weber G, Miserez M (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13:343–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Korenkov M, Paul A, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Arndt M, Chevrel JP, Corcione F, Fingerhut A, Flament JB, Kux M, Matzinger A, Myrvold HE, Rath AM, Simmermacher RK (2001) Classification and surgical treatment of incisional hernia: results of an experts’ meeting. Langenbecks Arch Surg 386:65–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Conze J, Rosch R, Klinge U, Weiss C, Anurov M, Titkowa S, Oettinger A, Schumpelick V (2004) Polypropylene in the intraabdominal position: influence of pore size and surface area. Hernia 8:365–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U (2005) The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2:103–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bellón JM, Rodríguez M, García-Honduvilla N, Gómez-Gil V, Pascual G, Buján J (2009) Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 89B:448–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12:63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD, Carbonell AM, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Textile analysis of heavy weight, midweight, and lightweight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 136:1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Gersin KS, Norton HJ, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Prospective histologic evaluation of intraabdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 21:1170–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 14:137–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 intraabdominal implantation in a rabbit. J Surg Res 140:6–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Foda M, Carlson MA (2009) Enterocutaneous fistula associated with ePTFE mesh: case report and review of the literature. Hernia 13:323–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Robinson TN, Clarke JH, Schoen J, Walsh MD (2005) Major mesh-related complications following hernia repair: events reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Surg Endosc 19:1556–1560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Iannitti DA, Hope WW, Tsikitis V (2007) Strength of tissue attachment to composite and ePTFE grafts after ventral hernia repair. JSLS 11:415–421

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bellón JM, Jurado F, García-Honduvilla N, López R, Carrera-San Martín A, Buján J (2002) The structure of a biomaterial rather than its chemical composition modulates the repair process at the peritoneal level. Am J Surg 184:154–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bellón JM, García-Honduvilla N, Serrano N, Rodríguez M, Pascual G, Buján J (2005) Composite prostheses for the repair of abdominal wall defects: effect of the structure of the adhesion barrier component. Hernia 9:338–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bellón JM, Contreras LA, Pascual G, Buján J (2000) Evaluation of the acute scarring response to the implant of different types of biomaterial in the abdominal wall. J Mater Sci Mater Med 11:25–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bellón JM, Contreras LA, Pascual G, Bujan J (1999) Neoperitoneal formation after implantation of various biomaterials for the repair of abdominal wall defects in rabbits. Eur J Surg 165:145–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. The Surgical Membrane Study Group (1992) Prophylaxis of pelvic sidewall adhesions with Gore-Tex surgical membrane: a multicenter clinical investigation. Fertil Steril 57:921–923

    Google Scholar 

  22. Binnebösel M, Klink CD, Otto J, Conze J, Jansen PL, Anurov M, Schumpelick V, Junge K (2010) Impact of mesh positioning on foreign body reaction and collagenous ingrowth in a rabbit model of open incisional hernia repair. Hernia 14:71–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schug-Pass C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2009) The use of composite meshes in laparoscopic repair of abdominal wall hernias: are there differences in biocompatibily? Experimental results obtained in a laparoscopic porcine model. Surg Endosc 23:487–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bohmer RD, Byrne PD, Maddern GJ (2002) A peeling mesh. Hernia 6:86–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 96:305–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Conze J, Junge K, Weiss C, Anurov M, Oettinger A, Klinge U, Schumpelick V (2008) New polymer for intraabdominal meshes–PVDF copolymer. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 87:321–328

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fortelny RH, Petter-Puchner AH, Glaser KS, Offner F, Benesch T, Rohr M (2010) Adverse effects of polyvinylidene fluoride-coated polypropylene mesh used for laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay repair of incisional hernia. Br J Surg 97:1140–1145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Berger D, Bientzle M (2009) Polyvinylidene fluoride: a suitable mesh material for laparoscopic incisional and parastomal hernia repair! A prospective, observational study with 344 patients. Hernia 13:167–172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT (2008) Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol 20:86–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Výzkumný ústav pletařský, a.s., Brno, Czech Republic.

Disclosures

Tomáš Novotný, Jiří Jeřábek, Karel Veselý, Robert Staffa, Martin Dvořák, and Jan Cagaš have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 2nd Department of Surgery, St. Anne’s University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, 656 91, Brno, Czech Republic

    Tomáš Novotný, Robert Staffa & Martin Dvořák

  2. 1st Department of Surgery, St. Anne’s University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, 656 91, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jiří Jeřábek & Jan Cagaš

  3. Institute of Pathologic Anatomy, St. Anne’s University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, 656 91, Brno, Czech Republic

    Karel Veselý

Authors
  1. Tomáš Novotný
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiří Jeřábek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karel Veselý
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Staffa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Dvořák
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jan Cagaš
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomáš Novotný.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Novotný, T., Jeřábek, J., Veselý, K. et al. Evaluation of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene mesh placed intraperitoneally in a New Zealand white rabbit model. Surg Endosc 26, 1884–1891 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2120-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2120-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation