Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Evaluation of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene mesh placed intraperitoneally in a New Zealand white rabbit model

T. Novotný, J. Jeřábek, K. Veselý, R. Staffa, M. Dvořák, J. Cagaš,

. 2012 ; 26 (7) : 1884-91.

Language English Country Germany

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago

BACKGROUND: The intraperitoneal application of surgical mesh remains a controversial issue because of possible complications, especially adhesion and fistula formation. This study aimed to assess the potential of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh for intraabdominal implantation. METHODS: Twenty-eight 5 × 5 cm samples of knitted macroporous PTFE mesh and light-weight polypropylene mesh (LW-PP) were implanted intraperitoneally in 14 New Zealand white rabbits in a randomized manner and fixed using eight polypropylene stitches. After 90 days, the adhesion formation, adhesion score, shrinkage, strength of fixation to the abdominal wall, and histologic biocompatibility were assessed. RESULTS: No intraoperative or anesthesia-related complications or mesh infection were recorded. The average area covered by adhesions was 4.7 ± 7.2% for the PTFE and 36.4 ± 36.1% for the LW-PP. The median adhesion score was 0 for the PTFE and 8 for the LW-PP. Shrinkage was 36.9 ± 12.9% for the PTFE mesh and 12.6 ± 8.72% for the LW-PP. The mesh-to-abdominal wall fixation strength was almost the same for both materials (PTFE 3.6 ± 1.9 vs. LW-PP 3.6 ± 2.9). The inflammatory cell count was almost the same for the two groups, with no statistically significant difference. The width of the inner granuloma was equal (PTFE 10.5 ± 0.9 vs. LW-PP 11.1 ± 0.9). The outer granuloma was reduced significantly in the PTFE group (PTFE 23.0 ± 2.1 vs. LW-PP 33.6 ± 7.9). One of the animals in the PTFE group died on postoperative day 12 because of ileus. The reason was an adhesion of the small intestine to the polypropylene fixation stitch, which caused small intestine strangulation. CONCLUSIONS: The knitted PTFE mesh induces fewer intraperitoneal adhesions of lower density than the light-weight polypropylene mesh. The strength of the knitted PTFE mesh fixation to the abdominal wall is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene mesh, but the shrinkage is greater. The biocompatibility of the knitted PTFE mesh is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene implant.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc12034808
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240618122841.0
007      
ta
008      
121023s2012 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00464-011-2120-4 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)22219009
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Novotný, Tomáš $u 2nd Department of Surgery, St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, 656 91 Brno, Czech Republic. tomas.novotny@fnusa.cz
245    10
$a Evaluation of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene mesh placed intraperitoneally in a New Zealand white rabbit model / $c T. Novotný, J. Jeřábek, K. Veselý, R. Staffa, M. Dvořák, J. Cagaš,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: The intraperitoneal application of surgical mesh remains a controversial issue because of possible complications, especially adhesion and fistula formation. This study aimed to assess the potential of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh for intraabdominal implantation. METHODS: Twenty-eight 5 × 5 cm samples of knitted macroporous PTFE mesh and light-weight polypropylene mesh (LW-PP) were implanted intraperitoneally in 14 New Zealand white rabbits in a randomized manner and fixed using eight polypropylene stitches. After 90 days, the adhesion formation, adhesion score, shrinkage, strength of fixation to the abdominal wall, and histologic biocompatibility were assessed. RESULTS: No intraoperative or anesthesia-related complications or mesh infection were recorded. The average area covered by adhesions was 4.7 ± 7.2% for the PTFE and 36.4 ± 36.1% for the LW-PP. The median adhesion score was 0 for the PTFE and 8 for the LW-PP. Shrinkage was 36.9 ± 12.9% for the PTFE mesh and 12.6 ± 8.72% for the LW-PP. The mesh-to-abdominal wall fixation strength was almost the same for both materials (PTFE 3.6 ± 1.9 vs. LW-PP 3.6 ± 2.9). The inflammatory cell count was almost the same for the two groups, with no statistically significant difference. The width of the inner granuloma was equal (PTFE 10.5 ± 0.9 vs. LW-PP 11.1 ± 0.9). The outer granuloma was reduced significantly in the PTFE group (PTFE 23.0 ± 2.1 vs. LW-PP 33.6 ± 7.9). One of the animals in the PTFE group died on postoperative day 12 because of ileus. The reason was an adhesion of the small intestine to the polypropylene fixation stitch, which caused small intestine strangulation. CONCLUSIONS: The knitted PTFE mesh induces fewer intraperitoneal adhesions of lower density than the light-weight polypropylene mesh. The strength of the knitted PTFE mesh fixation to the abdominal wall is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene mesh, but the shrinkage is greater. The biocompatibility of the knitted PTFE mesh is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene implant.
650    _2
$a břišní stěna $x chirurgie $7 D034861
650    _2
$a zvířata $7 D000818
650    _2
$a biokompatibilní materiály $x škodlivé účinky $7 D001672
650    _2
$a selhání zařízení $7 D004868
650    _2
$a granulom $x patologie $7 D006099
650    _2
$a peritoneum $x chirurgie $7 D010537
650    _2
$a polytetrafluoroethylen $x škodlivé účinky $7 D011138
650    _2
$a králíci $7 D011817
650    _2
$a náhodné rozdělení $7 D011897
650    _2
$a pevnost ve smyku $7 D033081
650    _2
$a chirurgické síťky $x škodlivé účinky $7 D013526
650    _2
$a adheze tkání $x etiologie $x patologie $7 D000267
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Jeřábek, Jiří
700    1_
$a Veselý, Karel
700    1_
$a Staffa, Robert
700    1_
$a Dvořák, Martin, $d 1969- $7 xx0087410
700    1_
$a Cagaš, Jan
773    0_
$w MED00004464 $t Surgical endoscopy $x 1432-2218 $g Roč. 26, č. 7 (2012), s. 1884-91
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22219009 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20121023 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240618122842 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 956818 $s 792305
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2012 $b 26 $c 7 $d 1884-91 $i 1432-2218 $m Surgical endoscopy $n Surg Endosc $x MED00004464
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20121023

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...