Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene" vs. Vypro"

Newly developed meshes with low weight and large pores such as Vypro (Ethicon, Norderstedt) were exactly adapted to the physiology of the human abdominal wall and proved to reduce chronic inflammatory processes. It was hypothesized that the reduced inflammatory response to a Vypro mesh would lead to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A 2002-08, Vol.12 (4), p.249-252
Hauptverfasser: Zieren, Jürgen, Neuss, Heiko, Ablassmaier, Bernd, Müller, Jochen M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 252
container_issue 4
container_start_page 249
container_title Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A
container_volume 12
creator Zieren, Jürgen
Neuss, Heiko
Ablassmaier, Bernd
Müller, Jochen M
description Newly developed meshes with low weight and large pores such as Vypro (Ethicon, Norderstedt) were exactly adapted to the physiology of the human abdominal wall and proved to reduce chronic inflammatory processes. It was hypothesized that the reduced inflammatory response to a Vypro mesh would lead to reduced adhesion formation following intraperitoneal implantation in comparison with a Prolene mesh (Ethicon). To test this hypothesis, 20 25-kg pigs underwent resection of a 10 x 10-cm section of the full-thickness anterior abdominal wall, excluding subcutaneous and cutaneous surface. The fascial defect was repaired using a 20 x 20-cm piece of either Vypro or Prolene mesh, which was sutured in inlay position with 4-0 Prolene single sutures at the edges. The main endpoint was the presence and degree of intra-abdominal adhesions to the mesh after 3 months. The amount of adhesions was calculated as a percentage of the mesh square and classified into four grades. There were no significant differences in the amount and grade of adhesions between the groups. Adhesions were less intensive in the Vypro group, but this difference was not significant. Dense adhesions between the liver and the mesh and small-bowel obstruction were observed only in the Prolene group. From the results of this study, Prolene and Vypro meshes cannot be recommended for intraperitoneal placement in hernia surgery because of their adhesion potential and risk of bowel obstruction.
doi_str_mv 10.1089/109264202760268014
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1089_109264202760268014</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>12269491</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-1655d6f80344c23b0f3818fe4bdb1e57baa6b9a836223f844c545e02c7a6a4da3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkE1LAzEQhoMotlb_gAcJvW_N9ybeSqlWKOhBvS7Z3YmN7BfJKvTfm9KCB-cyA_O8w_AgdEvJghJt7ikxTAlGWK4IU5pQcYamVMo8M4SL8zQnIEuEmaCrGL9IKsPFJZpQxpQRhk7RZlnvIPq-i9i6EQL23RjsAMGPfQe2wS3EHQ4wWH_Y4cF_xgf8GvoGOpjjn7jAH_sh9PNrdOFsE-Hm1Gfo_XH9ttpk25en59Vym1XMmDGjSspaOZ0eFBXjJXFcU-1AlHVJQealtao0VnPFGHc6QVJIIKzKrbKitnyG2PFuFfoYA7hiCL61YV9QUhy0FP-1pNDdMTR8ly3Uf5GTB_4LwrxcYQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene" vs. Vypro"</title><source>Mary Ann Liebert Online Subscription</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Zieren, Jürgen ; Neuss, Heiko ; Ablassmaier, Bernd ; Müller, Jochen M</creator><creatorcontrib>Zieren, Jürgen ; Neuss, Heiko ; Ablassmaier, Bernd ; Müller, Jochen M</creatorcontrib><description>Newly developed meshes with low weight and large pores such as Vypro (Ethicon, Norderstedt) were exactly adapted to the physiology of the human abdominal wall and proved to reduce chronic inflammatory processes. It was hypothesized that the reduced inflammatory response to a Vypro mesh would lead to reduced adhesion formation following intraperitoneal implantation in comparison with a Prolene mesh (Ethicon). To test this hypothesis, 20 25-kg pigs underwent resection of a 10 x 10-cm section of the full-thickness anterior abdominal wall, excluding subcutaneous and cutaneous surface. The fascial defect was repaired using a 20 x 20-cm piece of either Vypro or Prolene mesh, which was sutured in inlay position with 4-0 Prolene single sutures at the edges. The main endpoint was the presence and degree of intra-abdominal adhesions to the mesh after 3 months. The amount of adhesions was calculated as a percentage of the mesh square and classified into four grades. There were no significant differences in the amount and grade of adhesions between the groups. Adhesions were less intensive in the Vypro group, but this difference was not significant. Dense adhesions between the liver and the mesh and small-bowel obstruction were observed only in the Prolene group. From the results of this study, Prolene and Vypro meshes cannot be recommended for intraperitoneal placement in hernia surgery because of their adhesion potential and risk of bowel obstruction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1092-6429</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-9034</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1089/109264202760268014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12269491</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Animals ; Cyanoacrylates - adverse effects ; Polypropylenes - adverse effects ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects ; Swine ; Tissue Adhesions - etiology</subject><ispartof>Journal of laparoendoscopic &amp; advanced surgical techniques. Part A, 2002-08, Vol.12 (4), p.249-252</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-1655d6f80344c23b0f3818fe4bdb1e57baa6b9a836223f844c545e02c7a6a4da3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-1655d6f80344c23b0f3818fe4bdb1e57baa6b9a836223f844c545e02c7a6a4da3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3042,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12269491$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zieren, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neuss, Heiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ablassmaier, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller, Jochen M</creatorcontrib><title>Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene" vs. Vypro"</title><title>Journal of laparoendoscopic &amp; advanced surgical techniques. Part A</title><addtitle>J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A</addtitle><description>Newly developed meshes with low weight and large pores such as Vypro (Ethicon, Norderstedt) were exactly adapted to the physiology of the human abdominal wall and proved to reduce chronic inflammatory processes. It was hypothesized that the reduced inflammatory response to a Vypro mesh would lead to reduced adhesion formation following intraperitoneal implantation in comparison with a Prolene mesh (Ethicon). To test this hypothesis, 20 25-kg pigs underwent resection of a 10 x 10-cm section of the full-thickness anterior abdominal wall, excluding subcutaneous and cutaneous surface. The fascial defect was repaired using a 20 x 20-cm piece of either Vypro or Prolene mesh, which was sutured in inlay position with 4-0 Prolene single sutures at the edges. The main endpoint was the presence and degree of intra-abdominal adhesions to the mesh after 3 months. The amount of adhesions was calculated as a percentage of the mesh square and classified into four grades. There were no significant differences in the amount and grade of adhesions between the groups. Adhesions were less intensive in the Vypro group, but this difference was not significant. Dense adhesions between the liver and the mesh and small-bowel obstruction were observed only in the Prolene group. From the results of this study, Prolene and Vypro meshes cannot be recommended for intraperitoneal placement in hernia surgery because of their adhesion potential and risk of bowel obstruction.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Cyanoacrylates - adverse effects</subject><subject>Polypropylenes - adverse effects</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</subject><issn>1092-6429</issn><issn>1557-9034</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNplkE1LAzEQhoMotlb_gAcJvW_N9ybeSqlWKOhBvS7Z3YmN7BfJKvTfm9KCB-cyA_O8w_AgdEvJghJt7ikxTAlGWK4IU5pQcYamVMo8M4SL8zQnIEuEmaCrGL9IKsPFJZpQxpQRhk7RZlnvIPq-i9i6EQL23RjsAMGPfQe2wS3EHQ4wWH_Y4cF_xgf8GvoGOpjjn7jAH_sh9PNrdOFsE-Hm1Gfo_XH9ttpk25en59Vym1XMmDGjSspaOZ0eFBXjJXFcU-1AlHVJQealtao0VnPFGHc6QVJIIKzKrbKitnyG2PFuFfoYA7hiCL61YV9QUhy0FP-1pNDdMTR8ly3Uf5GTB_4LwrxcYQ</recordid><startdate>20020801</startdate><enddate>20020801</enddate><creator>Zieren, Jürgen</creator><creator>Neuss, Heiko</creator><creator>Ablassmaier, Bernd</creator><creator>Müller, Jochen M</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020801</creationdate><title>Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene" vs. Vypro"</title><author>Zieren, Jürgen ; Neuss, Heiko ; Ablassmaier, Bernd ; Müller, Jochen M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-1655d6f80344c23b0f3818fe4bdb1e57baa6b9a836223f844c545e02c7a6a4da3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Cyanoacrylates - adverse effects</topic><topic>Polypropylenes - adverse effects</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zieren, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neuss, Heiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ablassmaier, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller, Jochen M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of laparoendoscopic &amp; advanced surgical techniques. Part A</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zieren, Jürgen</au><au>Neuss, Heiko</au><au>Ablassmaier, Bernd</au><au>Müller, Jochen M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene" vs. Vypro"</atitle><jtitle>Journal of laparoendoscopic &amp; advanced surgical techniques. Part A</jtitle><addtitle>J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A</addtitle><date>2002-08-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>249</spage><epage>252</epage><pages>249-252</pages><issn>1092-6429</issn><eissn>1557-9034</eissn><abstract>Newly developed meshes with low weight and large pores such as Vypro (Ethicon, Norderstedt) were exactly adapted to the physiology of the human abdominal wall and proved to reduce chronic inflammatory processes. It was hypothesized that the reduced inflammatory response to a Vypro mesh would lead to reduced adhesion formation following intraperitoneal implantation in comparison with a Prolene mesh (Ethicon). To test this hypothesis, 20 25-kg pigs underwent resection of a 10 x 10-cm section of the full-thickness anterior abdominal wall, excluding subcutaneous and cutaneous surface. The fascial defect was repaired using a 20 x 20-cm piece of either Vypro or Prolene mesh, which was sutured in inlay position with 4-0 Prolene single sutures at the edges. The main endpoint was the presence and degree of intra-abdominal adhesions to the mesh after 3 months. The amount of adhesions was calculated as a percentage of the mesh square and classified into four grades. There were no significant differences in the amount and grade of adhesions between the groups. Adhesions were less intensive in the Vypro group, but this difference was not significant. Dense adhesions between the liver and the mesh and small-bowel obstruction were observed only in the Prolene group. From the results of this study, Prolene and Vypro meshes cannot be recommended for intraperitoneal placement in hernia surgery because of their adhesion potential and risk of bowel obstruction.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>12269491</pmid><doi>10.1089/109264202760268014</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1092-6429
ispartof Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A, 2002-08, Vol.12 (4), p.249-252
issn 1092-6429
1557-9034
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1089_109264202760268014
source Mary Ann Liebert Online Subscription; MEDLINE
subjects Animals
Cyanoacrylates - adverse effects
Polypropylenes - adverse effects
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Surgical Mesh - adverse effects
Swine
Tissue Adhesions - etiology
title Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene" vs. Vypro"
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T07%3A39%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Adhesions%20after%20intraperitoneal%20mesh%20repair%20in%20pigs:%20Prolene%22%20vs.%20Vypro%22&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20laparoendoscopic%20&%20advanced%20surgical%20techniques.%20Part%20A&rft.au=Zieren,%20J%C3%BCrgen&rft.date=2002-08-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=249&rft.epage=252&rft.pages=249-252&rft.issn=1092-6429&rft.eissn=1557-9034&rft_id=info:doi/10.1089/109264202760268014&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E12269491%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/12269491&rfr_iscdi=true