A lightweight polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) for laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall hernias
Tóm tắt
Despite numerous experimental studies, conducted most often with the open small-animal model, the ideal structure for a mesh with maximum biocompatibility in the intraabdominal region has yet to be found. To date, few experimental models have been concerned with the laparoscopic intraabdominal implantation of meshes. Numerous experimental and clinical studies appear to have identified expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), in the form of DualMesh, as the gold standard. Since publications have reported fistula formation and marked adhesions to be associated with the use of polypropylene meshes, only few studies have investigated meshes made of this material. It is known, however, that a reduction in the amount of material and an increase in pore size results in better mesh biocompatibility. Six pigs each underwent laparoscopic intraabdominal placement of either a TiMesh or a DualMesh, both of which were prepared for implantation in standardized fashion. After 87 ± 2 days, the pigs were killed, and postmortem laparoscopy was performed, followed by the removal of the tissue embedding the mesh for assessment of adhesions and shrinkage, and for histologic workup. The specimens were processed both histologically and immunohistochemically. In all but one case, the greater omentum adhered, usually over discrete areas, to the mesh. In every case the omentum was separable from the mesh surface only by sharp dissection. With the titanium-coated polypropylene meshes, the average total adhesion area was only 0.085, as compared with 0.25 for the GoreTex meshes (p = 0.055). The GoreTex meshes showed an average shrinkage to almost half of the original surface area (median, 0.435). The average shrinkage of the TiMesh, was to 0.18 of the original area (p = 0.006), which thus was significantly smaller. Determination of the partial volume of the inflammatory cells showed significantly lower median figures for the TiMesh (p = 0.009). Measurements of the proliferation marker Ki67 showed significantly higher values for ePTFE than for TiMesh (p = 0.011). The apoptosis index was significantly higher for the ePTFE membranes (p = 0.002). Titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) is clearly superior to the DualMesh in terms of biocompatibility, and is thus suitable for the laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall and incisional hernias.
Tài liệu tham khảo
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
Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A (1995) Integration of biomaterials implanted into abdominal wall: process of scar formation and macrophage response. Biomaterials 16: 381–387
Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A (1996) Interface formed between visceral peritoneum and experimental polypropylene or polytetrafluoroethylene abdominal wall implants. J Mat Sci Mat Med 7: 331–336
Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, Carrera-San Martin A (1997) The use of biomaterials in the repair of abdominal wall defects: a comparative study between polypropylene meshes (Marlex) and a new polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis (DualMesh). J Biomater Appl 12: 12–35
Bellon 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
Bellon JM, Jurado F, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Lopez R, Carrera-San Martin A, Bujan J (2002) The structure of biomaterial rather than its chemical composition modulates the repair process at the peritoneal level. Am J Surg 184:154–159
Coda A, Bendavid R, Botto-Micca F, Bossotti M, Bona A (2003) Structural alterations of prosthetic meshes in humans. Hernia 7: 29–34
Franklin ME, Gonzalez JJ, Glass JL, Manjarrez A (2004) Laparoscopic ventral and ncisional hernia repair: an 11-year experience. Hernia 8: 23–27
Garcia-Ruiz A, Naitoh T, Gagner M (1998) A porcine model for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8(1): 35–39
Garrard CL, Clements RH, Nanney L, Davidson JM, Richards WO (1999) Adhesion formation is reduced after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13: 10–13
Greca FH, de Paula JB, Biondo-Simoes ML, da Costa FD, da Silva A, Time S, Mansur A (2001) The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects: experimental study in dogs. Hernia 5: 59–64
Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238: 391–400
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V (2002) Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 103: 208–214
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1998) Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 164: 965–959
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Schumpelick V (1999) Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 165: 665–673
Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Hermanns B, Schumpelick V (2000) Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans. Chirurg 71: 43–51
Koehler RH, Begos 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. Zentralbl Chir 128: 625–630
Larson GM (2000) Ventral hernia repair by the laparoscopic approach. Surg Clin North Am 80: 1329–1340
LeBlanc KA, Whittaker JM, Bellanger DE, Rhynes VK (2003) Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernioplasty: lessons learned from 200 patients. Hernia 7: 118–124
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
Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE (1998) The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature review and clinical experience. J Am Coll Surg 186: 352–367
Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2004) In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty. Surg Endosc 18: 211–220
Schumpelick V, Klinge U, Welty G, Klosterhalfen B (2000) Meshes within the abdominal wall. Chirurg 70: 876–887
Schumpelick V, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Klinge U (1999) Minimierte Polypropylen-Netze zur präperitonealen Netzplastik (PNP) der Narbenhernie [Minimized polypropylene mesh for preperitoneal net plasty (PNP) of incisional hernia]. Chirurg 70: 422–430
Treutner KH, Müller SA, Jansen M, Schumpelick V (2001) Incidence, complications, and prophylaxis of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. Viszeralchirurgie 36: 369–401
Vrijland WW, Bonthuis F, Steyerberg EW, Marquet RL, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2000) Peritoneal adhesions to prosthetic materials: choice of mesh for incisional hernia repair. Surg Endosc 14: 960–963
Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Kasperk R, Schumpelick V (2001) Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia 5: 142–147
Young RM, Gustafson R, Dinsmore RC (2004) Sepramesh vs Dualmesh for abdominal wall hernia repairs in a rabbit model. Curr Surg 61: 77–79
Zühlke HV, Lorenz EMP, Straub EM, Savvas V (1990) Pathophysiology and classification of adhesions. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir 345: 1009–1016