Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2014; 27(04): 134-139
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1394087
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Biomaterials: So Many Choices, So Little Time. What Are the Differences?

John D. Hunter III
1   Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Jamie A. Cannon
1   Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 November 2014 (online)

Abstract

The use of biologic mesh has increased greatly in recent years in response to the need for a solution in managing contaminated hernias. Multiple different meshes are commercially available, and are derived from a variety of sources, including human dermis as well as animal sources. For a mesh to be effective, it must be resistant to infection, have adequate tensile strength for hernia repair, and be well tolerated by the host. To achieve this end, biologic meshes go through an intense processing that varies from one product to the next. In this article, the authors review the types of mesh available, how they are processed, and examine these characteristics in terms of their strengths and weaknesses in application to surgical technique.

 
  • References

  • 1 Butler CE. The role of bioprosthetics in abdominal wall reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2006; 33 (2) 199-211 , v–vi
  • 2 Sandor M, Xu H, Connor J , et al. Host response to implanted porcine-derived biologic materials in a primate model of abdominal wall repair. Tissue Eng Part A 2008; 14 (12) 2021-2031
  • 3 Gilbert TW, Sellaro TL, Badylak SF. Decellularization of tissues and organs. Biomaterials 2006; 27 (19) 3675-3683
  • 4 Keane TJ, Londono R, Turner NJ, Badylak SF. Consequences of ineffective decellularization of biologic scaffolds on the host response. Biomaterials 2012; 33 (6) 1771-1781
  • 5 Badylak SF. Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng 2014; 42 (7) 1517-1527
  • 6 Crapo PM, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF. An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials 2011; 32 (12) 3233-3243
  • 7 Gilbert TW, Freund JM, Badylak SF. Quantification of DNA in biologic scaffold materials. J Surg Res 2009; 152 (1) 135-139
  • 8 Cooper DK. Xenoantigens and xenoantibodies. Xenotransplantation 1998; 5 (1) 6-17
  • 9 McPherson TB, Liang H, Record RD, Badylak SF. Galalpha(1,3)Gal epitope in porcine small intestinal submucosa. Tissue Eng 2000; 6 (3) 233-239
  • 10 Daly KA, Stewart-Akers AM, Hara H , et al. Effect of the alphaGal epitope on the response to small intestinal submucosa extracellular matrix in a nonhuman primate model. Tissue Eng Part A 2009; 15 (12) 3877-3888
  • 11 Rosen MJ. Biologic mesh choices for surgical repair. In: Atlas of Abdominal Wall Reconstruction. Chapter 18. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2012: 316-321
  • 12 Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Whitson B. Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res 2001; 99 (2) 282-287
  • 13 Poulose BK, Scholz S, Moore DE , et al. Physiologic properties of small intestine submucosa. J Surg Res 2005; 123 (2) 262-267
  • 14 D'Ambra L, Berti S, Feleppa C, Magistrelli P, Bonfante P, Falco E. Use of bovine pericardium graft for abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated fields. World J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 4 (7) 171-176
  • 15 Khor E. Methods for the treatment of collagenous tissues for bioprostheses. Biomaterials 1997; 18 (2) 95-105
  • 16 Butler CE, Burns NK, Campbell KT, Mathur AB, Jaffari MV, Rios CN. Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 211 (3) 368-376
  • 17 Deeken CR, Melman L, Jenkins ED, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 212 (5) 880-888
  • 18 Harth KC, Blatnik JA, Anderson JM, Jacobs MR, Zeinali F, Rosen MJ. Effect of surgical wound classification on biologic graft performance in complex hernia repair: an experimental study. Surgery 2013; 153 (4) 481-492
  • 19 Bellows CF, Wheatley B, Moroz K, Rosales S, Morici LA. Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of biologic meshes following colonization with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Surg Res 2012; 175 (1) e35-e42
  • 20 Sbitany H, Kwon E, Chern H, Finlayson E, Varma MG, Hansen SL. Outcomes analysis of biologic mesh use for abdominal wall reconstruction in clean-contaminated and contaminated ventral hernia repair. Ann Plast Surg 2013; [e-pub ahead of print]
  • 21 Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 2013; 257 (6) 991-996
  • 22 http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/default.htm
    • Suggested Readings

    • 1 Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ. The biology of biologics: basic science and clinical concepts. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (5, Suppl 2) 9S-17S
    • 2 Ramshaw B, Bachman S. Surgical materials for ventral hernia repair: biologic mesh Part 2 of 3. Gen Surg News 2007; 10
    • 3 Bellows CF, Alder A, Helton WS. Abdominal wall reconstruction using biological tissue grafts: present status and future opportunities. Expert Rev Med Devices 2006; 3 (5) 657-675