Preclinical Evaluation of Mesh Implants: The Pathologist’s Perspective

Surgical and laparoscopic implantation of mesh devices is on the rise for a variety of applications. The complexity and range of evolving mesh designs calls for consistent and detailed pathologic evaluation in determining host responses and assessing overall safety. This review addresses the compone...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Toxicologic pathology 2019-04, Vol.47 (3), p.379-389
Hauptverfasser: Keating, John H., Melidone, Raffaele, Garcia-Polite, Fernando
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 389
container_issue 3
container_start_page 379
container_title Toxicologic pathology
container_volume 47
creator Keating, John H.
Melidone, Raffaele
Garcia-Polite, Fernando
description Surgical and laparoscopic implantation of mesh devices is on the rise for a variety of applications. The complexity and range of evolving mesh designs calls for consistent and detailed pathologic evaluation in determining host responses and assessing overall safety. This review addresses the components of evaluation of mesh implants in animal models, with emphasis on histologic parameters, semiquantitative scoring matrices, and morphometric analyses that have been specifically adapted to this class of implants. Necropsy assessment should include implant persistence, architecture, and associated host responses such as exudation and adhesions. Microscopic evaluation should focus on primary relevant responses such as bioresorption, integration/tissue ingrowth, neovascularization, and inflammation. Selection of the best means of processing and evaluation can be complicated, as meshes may include one or more biologic components (e.g., collagen), synthetic polymer fibers, coatings, and other molecules. The architecture of some meshes can influence tissue responses and complicate sampling, sectioning, and evaluation. Recognition of specific study objectives and knowledge of anticipated responses helps to determine the appropriate histologic or immunochemical stains, while understanding of mesh composition and anticipated persistence in tissue determines the suitability of paraffin or resin embedding, and both guide the evaluation of mesh devices in the preclinical setting.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0192623318811592
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2136548231</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0192623318811592</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2136548231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-304dd1f46381eb40d7875c41191bdb41a414c93ea054df49287b7712a031ab7e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhS0EoqWwM6GMLAFf7MQOG6oKrVREhzJHjnNpUyVxsJNK3fgb_D1-CalaGJCYbnjfe3f3CLkGegcgxD2FOIgCxkBKgDAOTsgQQsZ8iCickuFe9vf6gFw4t6EUJHB6TgaM8lBGcTgk04VFXRZ1oVXpTbaq7FRbmNozufeCbu3NqqZUdesevOUavYVq16Y0q8K1Xx-fzlugdQ3qttjiJTnLVenw6jhH5O1pshxP_fnr82z8OPc1E3Hr95uzDHIeMQmYcpoJKULNAWJIs5SD4sB1zFDRkGc5jwMpUiEgUJSBSgWyEbk95DbWvHfo2qQqnMayvxJN55IAWBRyGTDoUXpAtTXOWcyTxhaVsrsEaLLvL_nbX2-5OaZ3aYXZr-GnsB7wD4BTK0w2prN1_-3_gd-3P3cn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2136548231</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Preclinical Evaluation of Mesh Implants: The Pathologist’s Perspective</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Keating, John H. ; Melidone, Raffaele ; Garcia-Polite, Fernando</creator><creatorcontrib>Keating, John H. ; Melidone, Raffaele ; Garcia-Polite, Fernando</creatorcontrib><description>Surgical and laparoscopic implantation of mesh devices is on the rise for a variety of applications. The complexity and range of evolving mesh designs calls for consistent and detailed pathologic evaluation in determining host responses and assessing overall safety. This review addresses the components of evaluation of mesh implants in animal models, with emphasis on histologic parameters, semiquantitative scoring matrices, and morphometric analyses that have been specifically adapted to this class of implants. Necropsy assessment should include implant persistence, architecture, and associated host responses such as exudation and adhesions. Microscopic evaluation should focus on primary relevant responses such as bioresorption, integration/tissue ingrowth, neovascularization, and inflammation. Selection of the best means of processing and evaluation can be complicated, as meshes may include one or more biologic components (e.g., collagen), synthetic polymer fibers, coatings, and other molecules. The architecture of some meshes can influence tissue responses and complicate sampling, sectioning, and evaluation. Recognition of specific study objectives and knowledge of anticipated responses helps to determine the appropriate histologic or immunochemical stains, while understanding of mesh composition and anticipated persistence in tissue determines the suitability of paraffin or resin embedding, and both guide the evaluation of mesh devices in the preclinical setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0192-6233</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-1601</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0192623318811592</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30458695</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Toxicologic pathology, 2019-04, Vol.47 (3), p.379-389</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-304dd1f46381eb40d7875c41191bdb41a414c93ea054df49287b7712a031ab7e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-304dd1f46381eb40d7875c41191bdb41a414c93ea054df49287b7712a031ab7e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192623318811592$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192623318811592$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30458695$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Keating, John H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melidone, Raffaele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia-Polite, Fernando</creatorcontrib><title>Preclinical Evaluation of Mesh Implants: The Pathologist’s Perspective</title><title>Toxicologic pathology</title><addtitle>Toxicol Pathol</addtitle><description>Surgical and laparoscopic implantation of mesh devices is on the rise for a variety of applications. The complexity and range of evolving mesh designs calls for consistent and detailed pathologic evaluation in determining host responses and assessing overall safety. This review addresses the components of evaluation of mesh implants in animal models, with emphasis on histologic parameters, semiquantitative scoring matrices, and morphometric analyses that have been specifically adapted to this class of implants. Necropsy assessment should include implant persistence, architecture, and associated host responses such as exudation and adhesions. Microscopic evaluation should focus on primary relevant responses such as bioresorption, integration/tissue ingrowth, neovascularization, and inflammation. Selection of the best means of processing and evaluation can be complicated, as meshes may include one or more biologic components (e.g., collagen), synthetic polymer fibers, coatings, and other molecules. The architecture of some meshes can influence tissue responses and complicate sampling, sectioning, and evaluation. Recognition of specific study objectives and knowledge of anticipated responses helps to determine the appropriate histologic or immunochemical stains, while understanding of mesh composition and anticipated persistence in tissue determines the suitability of paraffin or resin embedding, and both guide the evaluation of mesh devices in the preclinical setting.</description><issn>0192-6233</issn><issn>1533-1601</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhS0EoqWwM6GMLAFf7MQOG6oKrVREhzJHjnNpUyVxsJNK3fgb_D1-CalaGJCYbnjfe3f3CLkGegcgxD2FOIgCxkBKgDAOTsgQQsZ8iCickuFe9vf6gFw4t6EUJHB6TgaM8lBGcTgk04VFXRZ1oVXpTbaq7FRbmNozufeCbu3NqqZUdesevOUavYVq16Y0q8K1Xx-fzlugdQ3qttjiJTnLVenw6jhH5O1pshxP_fnr82z8OPc1E3Hr95uzDHIeMQmYcpoJKULNAWJIs5SD4sB1zFDRkGc5jwMpUiEgUJSBSgWyEbk95DbWvHfo2qQqnMayvxJN55IAWBRyGTDoUXpAtTXOWcyTxhaVsrsEaLLvL_nbX2-5OaZ3aYXZr-GnsB7wD4BTK0w2prN1_-3_gd-3P3cn</recordid><startdate>201904</startdate><enddate>201904</enddate><creator>Keating, John H.</creator><creator>Melidone, Raffaele</creator><creator>Garcia-Polite, Fernando</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201904</creationdate><title>Preclinical Evaluation of Mesh Implants: The Pathologist’s Perspective</title><author>Keating, John H. ; Melidone, Raffaele ; Garcia-Polite, Fernando</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-304dd1f46381eb40d7875c41191bdb41a414c93ea054df49287b7712a031ab7e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Keating, John H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melidone, Raffaele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia-Polite, Fernando</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Toxicologic pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Keating, John H.</au><au>Melidone, Raffaele</au><au>Garcia-Polite, Fernando</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Preclinical Evaluation of Mesh Implants: The Pathologist’s Perspective</atitle><jtitle>Toxicologic pathology</jtitle><addtitle>Toxicol Pathol</addtitle><date>2019-04</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>379</spage><epage>389</epage><pages>379-389</pages><issn>0192-6233</issn><eissn>1533-1601</eissn><abstract>Surgical and laparoscopic implantation of mesh devices is on the rise for a variety of applications. The complexity and range of evolving mesh designs calls for consistent and detailed pathologic evaluation in determining host responses and assessing overall safety. This review addresses the components of evaluation of mesh implants in animal models, with emphasis on histologic parameters, semiquantitative scoring matrices, and morphometric analyses that have been specifically adapted to this class of implants. Necropsy assessment should include implant persistence, architecture, and associated host responses such as exudation and adhesions. Microscopic evaluation should focus on primary relevant responses such as bioresorption, integration/tissue ingrowth, neovascularization, and inflammation. Selection of the best means of processing and evaluation can be complicated, as meshes may include one or more biologic components (e.g., collagen), synthetic polymer fibers, coatings, and other molecules. The architecture of some meshes can influence tissue responses and complicate sampling, sectioning, and evaluation. Recognition of specific study objectives and knowledge of anticipated responses helps to determine the appropriate histologic or immunochemical stains, while understanding of mesh composition and anticipated persistence in tissue determines the suitability of paraffin or resin embedding, and both guide the evaluation of mesh devices in the preclinical setting.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>30458695</pmid><doi>10.1177/0192623318811592</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0192-6233
ispartof Toxicologic pathology, 2019-04, Vol.47 (3), p.379-389
issn 0192-6233
1533-1601
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2136548231
source SAGE Complete A-Z List; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Preclinical Evaluation of Mesh Implants: The Pathologist’s Perspective
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T18%3A00%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Preclinical%20Evaluation%20of%20Mesh%20Implants:%20The%20Pathologist%E2%80%99s%20Perspective&rft.jtitle=Toxicologic%20pathology&rft.au=Keating,%20John%20H.&rft.date=2019-04&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=379&rft.epage=389&rft.pages=379-389&rft.issn=0192-6233&rft.eissn=1533-1601&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0192623318811592&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2136548231%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2136548231&rft_id=info:pmid/30458695&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0192623318811592&rfr_iscdi=true