Abstract
Purpose: Aim of this experimental study is to compare the adhesion formation effects of two different prosthetic materials (HI-TEX ®Parp NT mesh and Proceed mesh) in hernia repair. Material and Methods: Twenty Wistar-Albino rats were used for the study. Defects of 2x1 cm size were created at the right and left of each rat's anterior abdominal wall. Proceed mesh is implanted on the right side and HI-TEX mesh on the left side at half of them (Group A), and Proceed mesh is implanted on the left side and HI-TEX mesh on the right side at the other half (Group B) to repair the defect. Two rats of each group is sacrificed at the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th and 35th days postoperatively and extension and severity of the adhesion and tissue reaction to the implants are evaluated. Results: At the end of the study, no difference was found between two groups concerning extension and severity of the adhesion. Adhesion were more frequent in the rats sacrificed on the 7th and 14th days. Proceed mesh adhesion extension (U=376, p<0.05) and severity (U=352, p<0.05)) were significantly less than HI-TEX mesh. Tissue reactions to implants were more with HI-TEX mesh, however, no difference was found statistically significant (x2=0.41, p>0.05). Conclusion: We have the opinion that Proceed mesh is superior to HI-TEX mesh in hernia repair as it has less adhesion formation effect. As a result, Proceed mesh is thought to be a more suitable hernia repairment material compared to HI-TEX mesh.
Keywords:
Hernia, mesh, adhesion
References
1
Israelsson LA, Jonsson T. Incisional hernia after midline laparotomy: a prospective study. Eur J Surg 1996;162:125-129.
2
Mudge M, Hughes LE. Incisional hernia: A 10-year prospective study. Laparoscopic incisional hernioplasty of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg 1985;72:70-71.
3
George CD, Ellis H. The results of incisional hernia repair: A twelve year review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1986;68:185-187.
4
Read RC, Yoder G. Recent trends in the management of incisional herniation. Arch Surg 1989;124:485-488.
5
Manninen MJ, Lavonius M, Perhoniemi VJ. Results of incisional hernia repair: a retrospective study of 172 unselected hernioplasties. Eur J Surg 1991;157:29-31.
6
Langer C, Liersch T, Kley C, et al. Twenty-five years of experience in incisional hernia surgery: A comparative retrospective study of 432 incisional hernia repairs. Chirurg 2003;74:638-645.
7
Paul A, Korenkov M, Peters S, et al. Unacceptable results of the Mayo procedure for repair of abdominal incisional hernias. Eur J Surg 1998;164:361-367.
8
Anthony T, Bergen PC, Kim LT. Factors affecting recurrence following incisional herniorrhaphy. World J Surg 2000;24:95-101.
9
Van der Linden FTPM, Van Vroonhoven TJMV. Long-term results after surgical correction of incisional hernia. Neth J Surg 1988;40:127-129.
10
Celi D, Cucinotta A, Lucibello L, et al. Abdominal wall hernia surgery: prosthetic materials. Chir Ital. 2005;57:207-210.
11
Read RC. Milestones in the history of hernia surgery: prosthetic repair. Hernia. 2004;8:8-14.
12
Sodji M, Rogier R, Durand S, et al. Composite non absorbable parietal prosthesis in polyethylen terephtalate – polyurethane (HI-Tex ® PARP NT) : prevention of intraperitoneal adhesions. Experimental study on rabbit. Ann. Chir 2001;126:549-553.
13
Hutchinson RW, Chagnon M, Divilio LT. Pre-clinical Abdominal Adhesion Studies with Surgical Mesh. Bussiness Briefing Global Surgery 2004 www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/952/Hutchinson. pdf.
14
Adhesion Scoring Group; Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems. Fertility and Sterility 1994;62:984-988.
15
Hooker GD, Taylor BM, Driman DK. Prevention of adhesion formation with use of sodium hyaluronate- based bioresorbable membrane in a rat model of ventral hernia repair with polypropylene mesh—A randomized, controlled study. Surgery. 1999;125:211–216.
16
Cappelletti M, Attolini G, Cangioni G, et al. The use of mesh in abdominal wall defects. Minerva Chir 1997;52:1169-1176.
17
Cumberland VH. A preliminary report on the use of prefabricated nylon weave in the repair of ventral hernia. Med J Aust 1952;1: 143–144.
18
Scales JT. Tissue reactions to synthetic materials. Proc R Soc Med 1953; 46: 647–652.
19
Jacob BP, Hogle NJ, Durak E, et al. Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus Proceed versus Parietex Composite. Surg Endosc 2007;21:629-633.
20
Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, et al. Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 1999;165: 665–673.
21
Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE. The outcomes of nonresorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature review and clinical experience. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186:352-367.
22
Bellon JM, Garcia-Carranza A, Jurado F, et al. Peritoneal regeneration after implant of a composite prosthesis in the abdominal wall. World J Surg 2001;25:147-152.
23
Vavfiík J, Foltenova V, Vítkova I, et al. Changes in abdominal wall after mesh implantation in rats. Med Sci Monit 2000;6:476-479.
24
Chew DK, Choi LH, Rogers AM. Enterocutaneous fistula 14 years after prosthetic mesh repair of a ventral incisional hernia: A life-long risk? Surgery 2000;127:352–353.
25
Matthews BD, Mostafa G, Carbonell AM, et al. Evaluation of adhesion formation and host tissue response to intra-abdominal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh and composite prosthetic mesh. J Surg Res 2005;123:227-234.
26
Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Peindl RD, et al. Prospective evaluation of adhesion formation and shrinkage of intra-abdominal prosthetics in a rabbit model.Am Surg 2006,72:808-814.
27
Jacob BP, Hogle NJ, Durak E, et al. Tissue ingrowth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus Proceed versus Parietex Composite.Surg Endosc 2007;21:629-633.
28
Kiudelis M, Jonciauskiene J, Deduchovas O, et al. Effects of different kinds of meshes on postoperative adhesion formation in the New Zealand White rabbit. Hernia 2007;11:19-23.
29
Burger JW, Halm JA, Wijsmuller AR, et al.Evaluation of new prosthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1320-1325.
30
Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Cristiano JA, et al. Comparative evaluation of adhesion formation, strength of ingrowth, and textile properties of prosthetic meshes after long-term intra-abdominal implantation in a rabbit. J Surg Res 2007;140:6-11.
31
Zieren J, Neuss H, Ablassmaier B, et al. Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene” vs. Vypro”. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2002;12:249-252.
32
Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contreras LA, et al. Comparison of a new type of polytetrafluoroethylene patch (Mycro Mesh) and polypropylene prosthesis (Marlex) for repair of abdominal wall defects. J Am Coll Surg 1996;183:11-18.
33
Kaufman Z, Engelberg M, Zager,M; Fecal fistula: a late complication of Marlex Mesh repair. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:543.
34
Law NW. A comparison of polypropylene mesh, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch and polyglycolic acid mesh for the repair of experimental abdominal wall defects. Acta Chir Scand 1990;156:759-762.
35
Murphy JL, Freeman JB, Dionne PG. Comparison of Marlex and Gore-tex to repair abdominal wall defects in the rat. Can J Surg 1989;32:244-247.
36
Demir U, Mihmanli M, Coskun H, et al. Comparison of prosthetic materials in incisional hernia repair. Surg Today 2005;35:223-227.
37
Gök A, Topgül K, Güngör B, et al. Laparoskopik ventral fıtık onarımda kullanılan yamaların karın içi yapışıklıklarına etkisi: Sıçanlarda deneysel çalışma. Ulusal Cer Der 2007;23: 99-105.
