Collagen-coated vs noncoated low-weight polypropylene meshes in a sheep model for vaginal surgery.: A pilot study

被引:70
作者
de Tayrac, Renaud
Alves, Antoine
Therin, Michel
机构
[1] Hop Caremeau, Serv Gynecol Obstet, F-30029 Nimes 9, France
[2] Ctr Hosp Univ Caremeau, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Nimes, France
[3] Biomatech, Chasse Sur Rhone, France
[4] Sofradim, Trevoux, France
关键词
vaginal surgery; polypropylene mesh; collagen; inflammatory response; sheep;
D O I
10.1007/s00192-006-0176-9
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
The aims of this study were dual. First, to evaluate the feasibility of a sheep model as an animal model for vaginal surgery with meshes. Second, to compare host response to two low-weight polypropylene (PP) meshes, a noncoated (Soft Prolene (TM), Gynecare, Ethicon) and a coated mesh with an absorbable hydrophilic film (Ugytex (TM), Sofradim). Thirty-six 20x20 mm polypropylene meshes (18 coated and 18 noncoated) were surgically implanted by the vaginal route in 12 adult ewes. Meshes were implanted in the anterior (n=12) and the posterior vaginal compartments (n=24). Animals were killed 1 (n=6) and 12 (n=6) weeks after surgery. Postimplantation evaluation included macroscopical examination, histological and immunohistochemical analysis and histomorphometrical measures of the distance between the meshes and the vaginal epithelium. The experimental procedure was feasible in all cases. Vaginal erosions were observed twice as frequently with the noncoated-PP meshes (6/18, 33.3%) as with the coated-PP meshes (3/18, 16.7%), even if that difference was not significant (p=0.4). However, no differences were observed between the two meshes in terms of shrinkage, tissue ingrowth, inflammatory response, and position of the mesh in the vaginal wall. The mechanism involved in the reduction of vaginal erosion could be due to the lesser adhesion of the coated mesh on the vaginal wound during the early postoperative period.
引用
收藏
页码:513 / 520
页数:8
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Comparison of novel synthetic materials with traditional methods to repair exposed abdominal wall fascial defects [J].
Aliabadi-Wahle, S ;
Cnota, M ;
Choe, E ;
Jacob, JT ;
Flint, LM ;
Ferrara, JJ .
JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 1998, 11 (02) :97-104
[2]  
Amid PK., 1997, Hernia, V1, P15, DOI 10.1007/bf02427664
[3]   Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects [J].
Bellón, JM ;
Contreras, LA ;
Buján, J ;
Palomares, D ;
Carrera-San Martin, A .
BIOMATERIALS, 1998, 19 (7-9) :669-675
[4]   Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: A prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation [J].
Benson, JT ;
Lucente, V ;
McClellan, E .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 175 (06) :1418-1421
[5]  
BOULANGER L, 2005, EUR J OBSTET GYNECOL
[6]  
Cervigni M, 2001, Curr Opin Urol, V11, P429, DOI 10.1097/00042307-200107000-00016
[7]  
DESAI VB, 1987, INT SURG, V72, P160
[8]  
GOLDENBERG A, 2005, ACTA CIR BRAS, V20
[9]   Comparison of adhesive properties of five different prosthetic materials used in hernioplasty [J].
Kayaoglu, HA ;
Ozkan, N ;
Hazinedaroglu, SM ;
Omer, FE ;
Erkek, AB ;
Koseoglu, RD .
JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 2005, 18 (02) :89-95
[10]   Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair [J].
Klinge, U ;
Junge, K ;
Stumpf, M ;
Öttinger, AP ;
Klosterhalfen, B .
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH, 2002, 63 (02) :129-136