Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair

New generation prosthetic biomaterials for abdominal wall repair have been designed to be less dense, by having larger pores than that of the standard polypropylene meshes, to improve abdominal wall compliance. The aim of the present study was to analyze the functional and morphologic properties of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials Applied biomaterials, 2009-05, Vol.89B (2), p.448-455
Hauptverfasser: Bellón, J. M., Rodríguez, M., García-Honduvilla, N., Gómez-Gil, V., Pascual, G., Buján, J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 455
container_issue 2
container_start_page 448
container_title Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials
container_volume 89B
creator Bellón, J. M.
Rodríguez, M.
García-Honduvilla, N.
Gómez-Gil, V.
Pascual, G.
Buján, J.
description New generation prosthetic biomaterials for abdominal wall repair have been designed to be less dense, by having larger pores than that of the standard polypropylene meshes, to improve abdominal wall compliance. The aim of the present study was to analyze the functional and morphologic properties of these new meshes. For this purpose, 7 × 5 cm2 defects were created in the anterior abdominal wall of 36 male New Zealand White rabbits and repaired using different polypropylene meshes: a heavyweight mesh (HW), Surgipro, and two lightweight meshes (LW), Parietene and Optilene. Six animals each implanted with biomaterial were sacrificed on postoperative days 14 and 90. Histological and morphometric analysis, adhesion assessment, and biomechanical resistance tests were performed. Similar behavior was shown by the LW and HW meshes in terms of the adhesions and macrophage response induced. After 14 days, the tensile strength of Optilene was greater than the strengths recorded for the other two biomaterials, probably because of its high elasticity. By 90 days, however, the tensile strengths of the three biomaterials were comparable. In conclusion, despite an initial tensile strength advantage shown by the mesh with larger pores, at 90 days postimplant, tensile strengths were similar. Compared with HW, LW prostheses have the benefit that less foreign material was implanted, preserving the elasticity of the recipient host tissue. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2009
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jbm.b.31234
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67103594</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67103594</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4294-a19c5b2cae6c55f4ceb12a68bae4d87cb890c998dfcf56a9596d9b0c93df4f7b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxSMEoqVw4o58QiCUxY7tJD7SVVmoWhAIhMTFsp1x4-J81M5umyt_OV52W2704o-n3zzNzMuy5wQvCMbF20vdLfSCkoKyB9kh4bzImajJw7t3RQ-yJzFeJrjEnD7ODkhd04oxcZj9Xg7dqILrL9DUAtLQqo0bAhosapy1EKCf0Dj4eQzDOHvoAXUQW4joVQtqMyPVN8i7i3a6hu35Grk-aQhuRgiuS9XKo25owG8tN-kfktBC6J1CAUblwtPskVU-wrP9fZR9f3_ybfkhP_u8-rh8d5YbVgiWKyIM14VRUBrOLTOgSaHKWitgTV0ZXQtshKgbaywvleCibIROEm0ss5WmR9nLnW8a5WoNcZKdiwa8Vz0M6yjLimDKBbsXpIyULG37XrDAqQnBywS-2YEmDDEGsHJMy1FhlgTLbYgyhSi1_Btiol_sbde6g-Yfu08tAWQHXDsP8_-85Onx-a1pvqtxcYKbuxoVfqXBacXlj08r-fP4S7HCX88lo38AZae5oQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20596956</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Bellón, J. M. ; Rodríguez, M. ; García-Honduvilla, N. ; Gómez-Gil, V. ; Pascual, G. ; Buján, J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bellón, J. M. ; Rodríguez, M. ; García-Honduvilla, N. ; Gómez-Gil, V. ; Pascual, G. ; Buján, J.</creatorcontrib><description>New generation prosthetic biomaterials for abdominal wall repair have been designed to be less dense, by having larger pores than that of the standard polypropylene meshes, to improve abdominal wall compliance. The aim of the present study was to analyze the functional and morphologic properties of these new meshes. For this purpose, 7 × 5 cm2 defects were created in the anterior abdominal wall of 36 male New Zealand White rabbits and repaired using different polypropylene meshes: a heavyweight mesh (HW), Surgipro, and two lightweight meshes (LW), Parietene and Optilene. Six animals each implanted with biomaterial were sacrificed on postoperative days 14 and 90. Histological and morphometric analysis, adhesion assessment, and biomechanical resistance tests were performed. Similar behavior was shown by the LW and HW meshes in terms of the adhesions and macrophage response induced. After 14 days, the tensile strength of Optilene was greater than the strengths recorded for the other two biomaterials, probably because of its high elasticity. By 90 days, however, the tensile strengths of the three biomaterials were comparable. In conclusion, despite an initial tensile strength advantage shown by the mesh with larger pores, at 90 days postimplant, tensile strengths were similar. Compared with HW, LW prostheses have the benefit that less foreign material was implanted, preserving the elasticity of the recipient host tissue. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2009</description><identifier>ISSN: 1552-4973</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-4981</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31234</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18837449</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Abdominal Wall - pathology ; Abdominal Wall - surgery ; abdominal wall repair ; Animals ; Biocompatible Materials - chemistry ; Biocompatible Materials - metabolism ; biomechanical resistance ; Elasticity ; Herniorrhaphy ; Implants, Experimental ; Macrophages - cytology ; Male ; Materials Testing ; peritoneal adhesions ; peritoneum ; polypropylene ; Polypropylenes - chemistry ; Polypropylenes - metabolism ; Prosthesis Implantation ; Rabbits ; Surgical Mesh ; Tensile Strength ; Tissue Adhesions</subject><ispartof>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2009-05, Vol.89B (2), p.448-455</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>(c) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4294-a19c5b2cae6c55f4ceb12a68bae4d87cb890c998dfcf56a9596d9b0c93df4f7b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4294-a19c5b2cae6c55f4ceb12a68bae4d87cb890c998dfcf56a9596d9b0c93df4f7b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjbm.b.31234$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjbm.b.31234$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18837449$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bellón, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Honduvilla, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez-Gil, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pascual, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buján, J.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair</title><title>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials</title><addtitle>J. Biomed. Mater. Res</addtitle><description>New generation prosthetic biomaterials for abdominal wall repair have been designed to be less dense, by having larger pores than that of the standard polypropylene meshes, to improve abdominal wall compliance. The aim of the present study was to analyze the functional and morphologic properties of these new meshes. For this purpose, 7 × 5 cm2 defects were created in the anterior abdominal wall of 36 male New Zealand White rabbits and repaired using different polypropylene meshes: a heavyweight mesh (HW), Surgipro, and two lightweight meshes (LW), Parietene and Optilene. Six animals each implanted with biomaterial were sacrificed on postoperative days 14 and 90. Histological and morphometric analysis, adhesion assessment, and biomechanical resistance tests were performed. Similar behavior was shown by the LW and HW meshes in terms of the adhesions and macrophage response induced. After 14 days, the tensile strength of Optilene was greater than the strengths recorded for the other two biomaterials, probably because of its high elasticity. By 90 days, however, the tensile strengths of the three biomaterials were comparable. In conclusion, despite an initial tensile strength advantage shown by the mesh with larger pores, at 90 days postimplant, tensile strengths were similar. Compared with HW, LW prostheses have the benefit that less foreign material was implanted, preserving the elasticity of the recipient host tissue. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2009</description><subject>Abdominal Wall - pathology</subject><subject>Abdominal Wall - surgery</subject><subject>abdominal wall repair</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biocompatible Materials - chemistry</subject><subject>Biocompatible Materials - metabolism</subject><subject>biomechanical resistance</subject><subject>Elasticity</subject><subject>Herniorrhaphy</subject><subject>Implants, Experimental</subject><subject>Macrophages - cytology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>peritoneal adhesions</subject><subject>peritoneum</subject><subject>polypropylene</subject><subject>Polypropylenes - chemistry</subject><subject>Polypropylenes - metabolism</subject><subject>Prosthesis Implantation</subject><subject>Rabbits</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh</subject><subject>Tensile Strength</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions</subject><issn>1552-4973</issn><issn>1552-4981</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxSMEoqVw4o58QiCUxY7tJD7SVVmoWhAIhMTFsp1x4-J81M5umyt_OV52W2704o-n3zzNzMuy5wQvCMbF20vdLfSCkoKyB9kh4bzImajJw7t3RQ-yJzFeJrjEnD7ODkhd04oxcZj9Xg7dqILrL9DUAtLQqo0bAhosapy1EKCf0Dj4eQzDOHvoAXUQW4joVQtqMyPVN8i7i3a6hu35Grk-aQhuRgiuS9XKo25owG8tN-kfktBC6J1CAUblwtPskVU-wrP9fZR9f3_ybfkhP_u8-rh8d5YbVgiWKyIM14VRUBrOLTOgSaHKWitgTV0ZXQtshKgbaywvleCibIROEm0ss5WmR9nLnW8a5WoNcZKdiwa8Vz0M6yjLimDKBbsXpIyULG37XrDAqQnBywS-2YEmDDEGsHJMy1FhlgTLbYgyhSi1_Btiol_sbde6g-Yfu08tAWQHXDsP8_-85Onx-a1pvqtxcYKbuxoVfqXBacXlj08r-fP4S7HCX88lo38AZae5oQ</recordid><startdate>200905</startdate><enddate>200905</enddate><creator>Bellón, J. M.</creator><creator>Rodríguez, M.</creator><creator>García-Honduvilla, N.</creator><creator>Gómez-Gil, V.</creator><creator>Pascual, G.</creator><creator>Buján, J.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200905</creationdate><title>Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair</title><author>Bellón, J. M. ; Rodríguez, M. ; García-Honduvilla, N. ; Gómez-Gil, V. ; Pascual, G. ; Buján, J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4294-a19c5b2cae6c55f4ceb12a68bae4d87cb890c998dfcf56a9596d9b0c93df4f7b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Wall - pathology</topic><topic>Abdominal Wall - surgery</topic><topic>abdominal wall repair</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biocompatible Materials - chemistry</topic><topic>Biocompatible Materials - metabolism</topic><topic>biomechanical resistance</topic><topic>Elasticity</topic><topic>Herniorrhaphy</topic><topic>Implants, Experimental</topic><topic>Macrophages - cytology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>peritoneal adhesions</topic><topic>peritoneum</topic><topic>polypropylene</topic><topic>Polypropylenes - chemistry</topic><topic>Polypropylenes - metabolism</topic><topic>Prosthesis Implantation</topic><topic>Rabbits</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh</topic><topic>Tensile Strength</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bellón, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Honduvilla, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez-Gil, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pascual, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buján, J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bellón, J. M.</au><au>Rodríguez, M.</au><au>García-Honduvilla, N.</au><au>Gómez-Gil, V.</au><au>Pascual, G.</au><au>Buján, J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair</atitle><jtitle>Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials</jtitle><addtitle>J. Biomed. Mater. Res</addtitle><date>2009-05</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>89B</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>448</spage><epage>455</epage><pages>448-455</pages><issn>1552-4973</issn><eissn>1552-4981</eissn><abstract>New generation prosthetic biomaterials for abdominal wall repair have been designed to be less dense, by having larger pores than that of the standard polypropylene meshes, to improve abdominal wall compliance. The aim of the present study was to analyze the functional and morphologic properties of these new meshes. For this purpose, 7 × 5 cm2 defects were created in the anterior abdominal wall of 36 male New Zealand White rabbits and repaired using different polypropylene meshes: a heavyweight mesh (HW), Surgipro, and two lightweight meshes (LW), Parietene and Optilene. Six animals each implanted with biomaterial were sacrificed on postoperative days 14 and 90. Histological and morphometric analysis, adhesion assessment, and biomechanical resistance tests were performed. Similar behavior was shown by the LW and HW meshes in terms of the adhesions and macrophage response induced. After 14 days, the tensile strength of Optilene was greater than the strengths recorded for the other two biomaterials, probably because of its high elasticity. By 90 days, however, the tensile strengths of the three biomaterials were comparable. In conclusion, despite an initial tensile strength advantage shown by the mesh with larger pores, at 90 days postimplant, tensile strengths were similar. Compared with HW, LW prostheses have the benefit that less foreign material was implanted, preserving the elasticity of the recipient host tissue. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2009</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>18837449</pmid><doi>10.1002/jbm.b.31234</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1552-4973
ispartof Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2009-05, Vol.89B (2), p.448-455
issn 1552-4973
1552-4981
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67103594
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Abdominal Wall - pathology
Abdominal Wall - surgery
abdominal wall repair
Animals
Biocompatible Materials - chemistry
Biocompatible Materials - metabolism
biomechanical resistance
Elasticity
Herniorrhaphy
Implants, Experimental
Macrophages - cytology
Male
Materials Testing
peritoneal adhesions
peritoneum
polypropylene
Polypropylenes - chemistry
Polypropylenes - metabolism
Prosthesis Implantation
Rabbits
Surgical Mesh
Tensile Strength
Tissue Adhesions
title Comparing the behavior of different polypropylene meshes (heavy and lightweight) in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T08%3A44%3A35IST&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=Comparing%20the%20behavior%20of%20different%20polypropylene%20meshes%20(heavy%20and%20lightweight)%20in%20an%20experimental%20model%20of%20ventral%20hernia%20repair&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20biomedical%20materials%20research.%20Part%20B,%20Applied%20biomaterials&rft.au=Bell%C3%B3n,%20J.%20M.&rft.date=2009-05&rft.volume=89B&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=448&rft.epage=455&rft.pages=448-455&rft.issn=1552-4973&rft.eissn=1552-4981&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jbm.b.31234&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67103594%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=20596956&rft_id=info:pmid/18837449&rfr_iscdi=true