共 50 条
Safety and efficacy of absorbable and non-absorbable fixation systems for intraperitoneal mesh fixation: an experimental study in swine
被引:3
|作者:
Kapoulas, S.
[1
,2
,7
]
Papalois, A.
[3
]
Papadakis, G.
[4
]
Tsoulfas, G.
[5
]
Christoforidis, E.
[1
]
Papaziogas, B.
[1
]
Schizas, D.
[6
]
Chatzimavroudis, G.
[1
]
机构:
[1] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, G Gennimatas Gen Hosp, Dept Surg 2, Thessaloniki, Greece
[2] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Upper Gastrointestinal & Bariatr Surg, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[3] ELPEN Pharmaceut Res & Expt Ctr, Pikermi, Greece
[4] Guys & St Thomas NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Renal Transplant & Access Surg, London, England
[5] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Papageorgiou Gen Hosp, Dept Surg 1, Thessaloniki, Greece
[6] Natl & Kapodistrian Univ Athens, Laikon Gen Hosp, Dept Surg 1, Athens, Greece
[7] Flat 318,Centenary Plaza,18 Holliday St, Birmingham B1 1TW, W Midlands, England
来源:
关键词:
Fixation devices;
Mesh;
Tack;
Laparoscopic hernia repair;
Experimental study;
VENTRAL HERNIA REPAIR;
ADHESION FORMATION;
SMALL-BOWEL;
EROSION;
METAANALYSIS;
TACKS;
OUTCOMES;
SUTURES;
BIOLOGY;
MODEL;
D O I:
10.1007/s10029-020-02352-x
中图分类号:
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号:
摘要:
Purpose Choice of the best possible fixation system in terms of safety and effectiveness for intraperitoneal mesh placement in hernia surgery remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of four fixation systems in a swine model of intraperitoneal mesh fixation. Methods Fourteen Landrace swine were utilized in the study. The experiment included two stages. Initially, four pieces of mesh (Ventralight (TM) ST) sizing 10 x 5 cm were placed and fixed intraperitoneally to reinforce 4 small full thickness abdominal wall defects created with diathermy. These defects were repaired primarily with absorbable suture before mesh implantation. Each mesh was anchored with a different tack device between Absorbatack (TM), Protack (TM), Capsure (TM), or Optifix (TM). The second stage took place after 60 days and included euthanasia, laparoscopy, and laparotomy via U-shaped incision to obtain the measurements for the outcome parameters. The primary endpoint of the study was to compare the peel strength of the compound tack/mesh from the abdominal wall. Secondary parameters were the extent and quality of visceral adhesions to the mesh, the degree of mesh shrinkage and the histological response around the tacks. Results Thirteen out of 14 animals survived the experiment and 10 were included in the final analysis. Capsure (TM) tacks had higher peel strength when compared to Absorbatack (TM) (p = 0.028); Protack (TM) (p = 0.043); and Optifix (TM) (p = 0.009). No significant differences were noted regarding the extent of visceral adhesions (Friedman's test p value 0.854), the adhesion quality (Friedman's test p value 0.506), or the mesh shrinkage (Friedman's test p value = 0.827). Four out of the ten animals developed no adhesions at all 2 months after implantation. Conclusion Capsure (TM) fixation system provided higher peel strength that the other tested devices in our swine model of intraperitoneal mesh fixation. Our findings generate the hypothesis that this type of fixation may be superior in a clinical setting. Clinical trials with long-term follow-up are required to assess the safety and efficacy of mesh fixation systems in hernia surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:567 / 579
页数:13
相关论文