medigraphic.com

2012, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2012; 50 (4)

Usefulness of and organic mesh in the repair of abdominal defects

Ramos-Gallardo GO, Gómez-Fonseca S, Rodríguez-Madrigal R, González-Reynoso LI

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 379-382
PDF size: 42.73 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: to measure the compliance, security and usefulness of organic mesh (bovine pericardium) in the repair of abdominal defect in an animal model.
Methods: Wistar rats (weight 300 to 500 g), were anesthetized and an abdominal defect of 1 cm in each animal was performed. Animals were divided according to the repair material used: bovine pericardium mesh (n = 6) and polipropilene mesh (n = 6). Animals were sacrificed on day 28 after the surgery. Presence of infection, necrosis and adherences (macroscopic and microscopic) were compared. Tensile force was also measured in both groups.
Results: inflammation, necrosis and adherences were similar in both groups. The prolene mesh (mean rupture force 66.5 joules) was stronger than bovine pericardium (mean rupture force 47.4 joules) p = 0.002, however, had also more adherences.
Conclusions: there is no difference between inflammation, necrosis and adherences. But the polipropilene mesh was stronger than the bovine pericardium mesh. This finding could have relevance in the clinical practice (hernia recurrence).



REFERENCES

  1. Shankara V, Weber DJ, Reed RL, Luchette FA. A review of available prosthetics for ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 2011;253(1):16-26.

  2. Bellpon HM, Jurado FJ, García HN, López R, Carrera-San Martín A, Bujan J. The structure of a biomaterial rather than its chemical composition modulates the repair process at the peritoneal level. Am J Surgery 2002;184(29):154-159.

  3. Felemovicius I, Bonsack M, Hagerman G, Delaney J. Prevention of adhesions to polypropylene mesh. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198(4):543-548.

  4. Bello J, Jurado F, García HN, Carnicer E, Serrano N, Rodríguez M, et al. Temporary closure of the abdomen using a new composite prosthesis. Am J of Surg 2004;88(3)314-320.

  5. Junge K, Kingle U, Roshc R. Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 2002;26(12):1472-1480.

  6. Johnson EK, Hoyt CH, Disnmore RC. Abdominal wall hernia repair: a long-term comparison of Sepramesh and Dualmesh in a rabbit hernia model. Am Surg 2004;70(8): 657-661.

  7. Greenawalt KE, Butler TJ, Rowe EA, Finneral AC, Garlick DS, Burns JW. Evaluation of sepramesh biosurgical composite in a rabbit hernia repair model. J Surg Res 2000;94(2):92-98.

  8. Wong J. Laboratory animal care policies and regulations: Canada. ILAR J 1995;37(2):57-59.

  9. Aslani N, Brown CJ. Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 2010;14(5):455- 462.

  10. Santillán-Doherty P, Jasso-Victoria R, Sotres-Vega A, Olmos R, Arreola JL, García D, et al. Thoracoabdominal wall repair with glutaraldehyde-preserved bovine pericardium. J In invest Surg 1996;9(1):45-55.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com