Experimental study on synthetic and biological mesh implantation in a contaminated environment

British Journal of Surgery

Volumn 99, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1734-1741

  Deerenberg, E B ^a   Mulder, I M ^a   Grotenhuis, N ^a   Ditzel, M ^a   Jeekel, J ^a   Lange, J F ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL ABSCESS; ABDOMINAL INFECTION; ANIMAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFERENCE PAPER; EQUIPMENT CONTAMINATION; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FIBROSIS; LIGATION; MALE; PERITONITIS; RAT; STANDARD; SURGICAL INFECTION; SURGICAL MESH; TISSUE ADHESION; WISTAR RAT;

ABDOMINAL ABSCESS; ANIMALS; EQUIPMENT CONTAMINATION; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FIBROSIS; INTRAABDOMINAL INFECTIONS; LIGATION; MALE; PERITONITIS; RATS; RATS, WISTAR; SURGICAL MESH; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; TISSUE ADHESIONS;

EID: 84868658943     PISSN: 00071323     EISSN: 13652168     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8954     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, et al., A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 392-398.
2. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J,. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 578-583.
3. Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Ploeg RJ, Busscher HJ,. The phenomenon of infection with abdominal wall reconstruction. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 2314-2327.
4. Choi JJ, Palaniappa NC, Dallas KB, Rudich TB, Colon MJ, Divino CM,. Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33 832 cases. Ann Surg 2012; 255: 176-180.
5. Amid PK,. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1997; 1: 15-21.
6. Muhl T, Binnebösel M, Klinge U, Goedderz T,. New objective measurement to characterize the porosity of textile implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008; 84: 176-183.
7. Halm JA, de Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF,. Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 2007; 31: 423-429.
8. Burger JW, Halm JA, Wijsmuller AR, ten Raa S, Jeekel J,. Evaluation of new prosthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 1320-1325.
9. Reijnen MM, Holmdahl L, Kooistra T, Falk P, Hendriks T, van Goor H,. Time course of peritoneal tissue plasminogen activator after experimental colonic surgery: effect of hyaluronan-based antiadhesive agents and bacterial peritonitis. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 103-109.
10. van't Riet M, de Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Bonthuis F, Marquet RL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, et al., Prevention of adhesion to prosthetic mesh: comparison of different barriers using an incisional hernia model. Ann Surg 2003; 237: 123-128.
11. Schreinemacher MH, Emans PJ, Gijbels MJ, Greve JW, Beets GL, Bouvy ND,. Degradation of mesh coatings and intraperitoneal adhesion formation in an experimental model. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 305-313.
12. Deerenberg EB, Mulder IM, Ditzel M, Slieker JC, Bemelman WA, Jeekel J, et al., Polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel decreases formation of adhesions in a rat model of peritonitis. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2012; [Epub ahead of print].
13. Zühlke HV, Lorenz EM, Straub EM, Savvas V,. [Pathophysiology and classification of adhesions.] Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir 1990; 1009-1016.
14. Rodgers KE, Schwartz HE, Roda N, Thornton M, Kobak W, diZerega GS,. Effect of Oxiplex* films (PEO/CMC) on adhesion formation and reformation in rabbit models and on peritoneal infection in a rat model. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 831-838.
15. van de Breevaart Bravenboer J, In der Maur CD, Bos PK, Feenstra L, Verhaar JA, Weinans H, et al., Improved cartilage integration and interfacial strength after enzymatic treatment in a cartilage transplantation model. Arthritis Res Ther 2004; 6: R469-R476.
16. Engelsman AF, van Dam GM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Ploeg RJ,. In vivo evaluation of bacterial infection involving morphologically different surgical meshes. Ann Surg 2010; 251: 133-137.
17. Kelly ME, Behrman SW,. The safety and efficacy of prosthetic hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds. Am Surg 2002; 68: 524-528.
18. Ventral Hernia Working Group, Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, et al., Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 2010; 148: 544-558.
19. Harth KC, Broome AM, Jacobs MR, Blatnik JA, Zeinali F, Bajaksouzian S, et al., Bacterial clearance of biologic grafts used in hernia repair: an experimental study. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 2224-2229.
20. Rosen MJ, Denoto G, Itani KM, Butler C, Vargo D, Smiell J, et al., Evaluation of surgical outcomes of retro-rectus versus intraperitoneal reinforcement with bio-prosthetic mesh in the repair of contaminated ventral hernias. Hernia 2012; [Epub ahead of print].
21. Simopoulos AP,. Omega-3 fatty acids in inflammation and autoimmune diseases. J Am Coll Nutr 2002; 21: 495-505.
22. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Charbon JA, Rosman C, Hesselink EJ, van der Wilt GJ, et al., Repair of giant midline abdominal wall hernias: 'components separation technique' versus prosthetic repair:interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 2007; 31: 756-763.
23. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G,. Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair in 407 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190: 645-650.
24. Petersen S, Henke G, Freitag M, Faulhaber A, Ludwig K,. Deep prosthesis infection in incisional hernia repair: predictive factors and clinical outcome. Eur J Surg 2001; 167: 453-457.
25. Bellõn JM, García-Carranza A, García-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martín A, Buján J,. Tissue integration and biomechanical behaviour of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 489-494.
26. Burns NK, Jaffari MV, Rios CN, Mathur AB, Butler CE,. Non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 167-176.
27. Campbell KT, Burns NK, Rios CN, Mathur AB, Butler CE,. Human versus non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix used for ventral hernia repair: comparison of in vivo fibrovascular remodeling and mechanical repair strength. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 2321-2332.
28. ¢ for the repair of abdominal wall defects. Hernia 2011; 15: 315-319.
29. Voskerician G, Rodriguez A, Gingras PH,. Macroporous condensed poly(tetra fluoro-ethylene). II. In vivo effect on adhesion formation and tissue integration. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007; 82: 426-435.
30. Raptis DA, Vichova B, Breza J, Skipworth J, Barker S,. A comparison of woven versus nonwoven polypropylene (PP) and expanded versus condensed polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) on their intraperitoneal incorporation and adhesion formation. J Surg Res 2011; 169: 1-6.
31. Jenkins ED, Yom V, Melman L, Brunt LM, Eagon JC, Frisella MM, et al., Prospective evaluation of adhesion characteristics to intraperitoneal mesh and adhesiolysis-related complications during laparoscopic re-exploration after prior ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 3002-3007.
32. Pierce RA, Perrone JM, Nimeri A, Sexton JA, Walcutt J, Frisella MM, et al., 120-day comparative analysis of adhesion grade and quantity, mesh contraction, and tissue response to a novel omega-3 fatty acid bioabsorbable barrier macroporous mesh after intraperitoneal placement. Surg Innov 2009; 16: 46-54.
33. Mamy L, Letouzey V, Lavigne JP, Garric X, Gondry J, Mares P, et al., Correlation between shrinkage and infection of implanted synthetic meshes using an animal model of mesh infection. Int Urogynecol J 2011; 22: 47-52.
34. Bellows CF, Shadduck PP, Helton WS, Fitzgibbons RJ,. The design of an industry-sponsored randomized controlled trial to compare synthetic mesh versus biologic mesh for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2011; 15: 325-332.
35. Remick DG, Newcomb DE, Bolgos GL, Call DR,. Comparison of the mortality and inflammatory response of two models of sepsis: lipopolysaccharide vs. cecal ligation and puncture. Shock 2000; 13: 110-116.
36. Villa P, Sartor G, Angelini M, Sironi M, Conni M, Gnocchi P, et al., Pattern of cytokines and pharmacomodulation in sepsis induced by cecal ligation and puncture compared with that induced by endotoxin. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 1995; 2: 549-553.
37. Remick DG, Ward PA,. Evaluation of endotoxin models for the study of sepsis. Shock 2005; 24 (Suppl 1): 7-11.
38. Wichterman KA, Baue AE, Chaudry IH,. Sepsis and septic shock-review of laboratory models and a proposal. J Surg Res 1980; 29: 189-201.