In vivo comparison of suburethral sling materials

International Urogynecology Journal

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 106-110

  Slack, Mark ^a   Sandhu, J S ^b   Staskin, D R ^b   Grant, R C ^c  

^a ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c American Medical Systems   (United States)

Author keywords

Graft healing; Polypropylene; Suburethral sling; Urinary incontinence

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL; POLYPROPYLENE;

ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIOCOMPATIBILITY; CELL GROWTH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONNECTIVE TISSUE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; IMPLANTATION; IN VIVO STUDY; INFLAMMATORY INFILTRATE; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; SUBURETHRAL SLING; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; TISSUE GROWTH; TISSUE REACTION; TISSUE SECTION; URETHRA;

EID: 32044474659     PISSN: 09373462     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-005-1320-7     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. European markets for urological devices (2004) Medical Technology Report EUUR04, August 2004, p 57, Millennium Research Group, Toronto, ON, Canada
2. Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15-21
3. Bellón 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
4. Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, Palomares D, Carrera-San Martin A (1998) Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials 19:669-675
5. Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, Öttinger AP, Klosterhalfen B (2002) Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 63:129-136
6. White RA, Hirose FM, Sproat RW, Lawrence RS, Nelson RJ (1981) Histopathologic observations after short-term implantation of two porous elastomers in dogs. Biomaterials 2:171-176
7. Morehead JM, Holt GR (1994) Soft-tissue response to synthetic biomaterials. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 27:195-201
8. White RA (1988) The effect of porosity and biomaterial on the healing and long-term mechanical properties of vascular prostheses. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 34:95-100
9. Taylor DF, Smith FB (1972) Porous methyl methacrylate as an implant material. J Biomed Mater Res Symp 2:467-479
10. Long J, Tan E, Uitto J, DeSantis S, Shors E, Gebre B, Nelson R, Klein S, Goldberg L, White R (1982) Implant microstructure and collagen synthesis. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 28:195-199
11. Homsy CA, Kent JN, Hinds EC (1973) Materials for oral implantation-Biological and functional criteria. J Am Dental Assoc 86:817-832
12. Williams DF (1973) The response of the body environment to implants. In: Williams DF, Roaf R (eds) Implants in surgery. WB Saunders, London, pp 203-297
13. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Hermanns B, Klinge U (2002) Influence of implantation interval on the long-term biocompatibility of surgical mesh. Br J Surg 89:1043-1048
14. Staskin DR, Plzak L (2002) Synthetic slings: Pros and cons. Curr Urol Rep 3:414-417