Improved surgical outcome by modification of porcine dermal collagen implant in abdominal wall reconstruction in rats

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 362-368

  Zheng, Fang ^a   Verbeken, Eric ^a   De Ridder, Dirk ^a   Deprest, Jan ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Centre for Surgical Technologies   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Biomaterials; Inflammation; Porosity; Tensile strength

Indexed keywords

COLLAGEN;

ABDOMINAL WALL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EX VIVO STUDY; FOREIGN BODY; HERNIA; HISTOPATHOLOGY; IMPLANT; INFLAMMATION; MALE; NEOVASCULARIZATION (PATHOLOGY); NONHUMAN; RAT; TENSILE STRENGTH; TISSUE SECTION;

ABDOMINAL WALL; ANIMALS; COLLAGEN; MALE; PARAFFIN EMBEDDING; POROSITY; RATS; RATS, WISTAR; RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SKIN, ARTIFICIAL; SWINE; TENSILE STRENGTH; TISSUE FIXATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 21744458256     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20148     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Alponat A, Lakshminarasappa SR, Yavuz N, et al. 1997. Prevention of adhesions by Seprafilm, an absorbable adhesion barrier: An incisional hernia model in rats. Am Surgeon 63:818-9.
2. Amid PK. 1997. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15-21.
3. Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, et al. 2002. Morphologic study of small intestinal submucosa as a body wall repair device. J Surg Res 103:190-202.
4. Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, et al. 1998. Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials 19; 669-75.
5. Bezuidenhout D, Davies N, Zilla P. 2002. Effect of well defined dodecahedral porosity on inflammation and angiogenesis. ASAIO J 48:465-71.
6. Ferrando JM, et al. 2001. Early imaging of integration response to polypropylene mesh in abdominal wall by environmental scanning electron microscopy: Comparison of two placement techniques and correlation with tensiometric studies. World J Surg 25:840-7.
7. Flynn BJ, Webster GD. 2002. Surgical management of the apical vaginal defect. Curr Opin Urol 12:353-8.
8. Greca FH, et al. 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.
9. Klinge U, et al. 1998. Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. Eur J Surg 164:951-60.
10. Klinge U, et al. 2002. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 103:208-14.
11. Lamb JP, Vitale T, Kaminski DL. 1983. Comparative evaluation of synthetic meshes used for abdominal wall replacement. Surgery 93:643-8.
12. Law NW, Ellis H. 1991. A comparison of polypropylene mesh and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch for the repair of contaminated abdominal wall defects-an experimental study. Surgery 109:652-5.
13. Matthews BD, et al. 2003. Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114: 126-32.
14. Movat HZ. 1955. Demonstration of all connective tissue elements in a single section. Arch Path 60:289-95.
15. Oliver RF, Barker H, Cooke A, et al. 1982. Dermal collagen implants. Biomaterials 3:38-40.
16. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. 1997. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501-6.
17. Pans A, Pierard GE. 1992. A comparison of intraperitoneal prostheses for the repair of abdominal muscular wall defects in rats. Eur Surg Res 24:54-60.
18. Romo T III, Sclafani AP, Jacono AA. 2000. Nasal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants. Facial Plast Surg 16:55-61.
19. Seare WJ Jr, Pantalos GM, Burns GL, et al, 1993. Quantitative bacterial analysis of porous, fabric, and smooth non-blood contacting implant surfaces and their tissue interfaces in a 169 day pneumatic total artificial heart animal recipient. ASAIO J 39:M668-74.
20. Taylor DF. 1972. Porosity in silver-tin amalgams. J Biomed Mater Res 6:289-304.
21. Toosie K, et al. 2000. Fibrin glue reduces intra-abdominal adhesions to synthetic mesh in a rat ventral hernia model. Am Surg 66:41-5.
22. Wake MC, Patrick CW Jr, Mikos AG. 1994. Pore morphology effects on the fibrovascular tissue growth in porous polymer substrates. Cell Transpl 3: 339-43.
23. Wilkins ES. 1991. Tissue reaction to intraperitoneally implanted catheter materials. J Biomed Eng 13:173-5.
24. Zheng F, et al. 2004. Host response after reconstruction of abdominal wall defects with porcine dermal collagen in a rat model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1961-70.