Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Immunohistochemical analysis of host reaction to heavyweight-, reduced-weight-, and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-based meshes after short- and long-term intraabdominal implantations

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Prosthetic meshes induce a variety of inflammatory changes in the host, which may lead to excessive scarring with detrimental clinical consequences, especially in the long term. This study aimed to characterize the degree of short- and long-term inflammatory changes induced by common prosthetic meshes.

Methods

Twenty 4 × 4-cm samples each of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), heavyweight polypropylene (hPP), ePTFE/heavyweight polypropylene (ePTFE/hPP), and reduced-weight polypropylene/regenerated cellulose (rPP) were implanted intraperitoneally in 40 rabbits for 4 or 12 months. After explantation, samples of mesh/tissue complex were analyzed for the degrees of cellular apoptosis (enzyme-linked immunoassay [ELISA]) and cellular turnover (mouse monoclonal antibody).

Results

In the short term, the degree of apoptosis in the hPP mesh was significantly higher than in the ePTFE and rPP groups. Similarly, it was higher in the ePTFE/hPP group than in either the ePTFE or the rPP group. The amount of Ki-67-positive cells was significantly higher in the hPP group than in the ePTFE or rPP group. The cell turnover in the ePTFE/hPP group was similar to that in the hPP group, but significantly higher than in either the ePTFE or the rPP group. The rPP group, in turn, had a higher Ki-67 score than the ePTFE group. In the long term, both the degree of apoptosis and Ki-67 positivity were significantly lower in the rPP and ePTFE groups than in either the ePTFE/hPP or the hPP group. A significant decrease in Ki-67 scores between the short and long-term groups was found only in the rPP group.

Conclusion

In the short term, heavyweight polypropylene-based meshes were associated with significantly higher cell proliferation and death. A significantly higher degree of apoptosis and cell turnover were associated with heavyweight polypropylene-based meshes even 1 year after implantation, indicating ongoing inflammation and scar remodeling. On the other hand, ePTFE and reduced-weight polypropylene meshes were associated with nearly physiologic levels of inflammatory markers. Overall, an exaggerated and persistent host foreign body response to heavyweight polypropylene-based meshes indicates poor biocompatibility, with potential detrimental clinical sequela.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schumpelick V, Klinge U (2003) Prosthetic implants for hernia repair. Br J Surg 90:1457–1458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Cristiano JA, Paton BL, Norton HJ, Peindl RD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) 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 140:6–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Novitsky YW, Harrell AG, Hope WW, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Meshes in hernia repair. Surg Technol Int 16:123–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Greca FH, de Paula JB, Biondo-Simões ML, da Costa FD, da Silva AP, Time S, Mansur A (2001) The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects: experimental study in dogs. Hernia 5:59–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U (2005) The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2:103–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12:63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Peindl RD, Cobb WS, Austin CE, Cristiano JA, Norton JH, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Prospective evaluation of adhesion formation and shrinkage of intra-abdominal prosthetics in a rabbit model. Am Surg 72:808–813, discussion 813–814

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, Schumpelick V (1999) Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 165:665–673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Matthews BD, Mostafa G, Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, Austin C, Norton HJ, Heniford BT (2005) Evaluation of adhesion formation and host tissue response to intra-abdominal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh and composite prosthetic mesh. J Surg Res 123:227–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years’ experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 238:391–399, discussion 399–400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carbajo MA, Martín del Olmo JC, Blanco JI, de la Cuesta C, Toledano M, Martin F, Vaquero C, Inglada L (1999) Laparoscopic treatment vs open surgery in the solution of major incisional and abdominal wall hernias with mesh. Surg Endosc 13:250–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Novitsky YW, Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2006) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in obese patients: a new standard of care. Arch Surg 141:57–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 133:378–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Pollinger HS, Backus CL, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 114:126–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Kasperk R, Schumpelick V (2001) Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia 5:142–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosch R, Junge K, Schachtrupp A, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2003) Mesh implants in hernia repair: inflammatory cell response in a rat model. Eur Surg Res 35:161–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Gersin KS, Norton HJ, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 21:1170–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V (2002) Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 103:208–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2004) In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc 18:211–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gonzalez R, Fugate K, McClusky D III, Ritter EM, Lederman A, Dillehay D, Smith CD, Ramshaw BJ (2005) Relationship between tissue ingrowth and mesh contraction. World J Surg 29:1038–1043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Junge K, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Mertens PR, Rosch R, Schachtrupp A, Ulmer F, Schumpelick V (2002) Influence of mesh materials on collagen deposition in a rat model. J Invest Surg 15:319–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Marois Y, Cadi R, Gourdon J, Fatouraee N, King MW, Zhang Z, Guidoin R (2000) Biostability, inflammatory response, and healing characteristics of a fluoropassivated polyester-knit mesh in the repair of experimental abdominal hernias. Artif Organs 24:533–543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Post S, Weiss B, Willer M, Neufang T, Lorenz D (2004) Randomized clinical trial of lightweight composite mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 91:44–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Dwyer PJ, Alani A, McConnachie A (2005) Groin hernia repair: postherniorrhaphy pain. World J Surg 29:1062–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gerdes J, Lemke H, Baisch H, Wacker HH, Schwab U, Stein H (1984) Cell cycle analysis of a cell proliferation-associated human nuclear antigen defined by the monoclonal antibody Ki-67. J Immunol 133:1710–1715

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ben-Izhak O, Laster Z, Araidy S, Nagler RM (2007) TUNEL—an efficient prognosis predictor of salivary malignancies. Br J Cancer 96:1101–1106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Junge K, Klinge U, Rosch R, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2002) Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 26:1472–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, AP AP, Klosterhalfen B (2002) Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 63:129–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Hermanns B, Klinge U (2002) Influence of implantation interval on the long-term biocompatibility of surgical mesh. Br J Surg 89:1043–1048

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study was sponsored in part by the grant from Ethicon, Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA

    Y. W. Novitsky

  2. Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Y. W. Novitsky, J. A. Cristiano, A. G. Harrell, W. Newcomb, J. H. Norton, K. W. Kercher & B. T. Heniford

Authors
  1. Y. W. Novitsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. A. Cristiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. G. Harrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Newcomb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. H. Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. W. Kercher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. T. Heniford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. W. Novitsky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Novitsky, Y.W., Cristiano, J.A., Harrell, A.G. et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of host reaction to heavyweight-, reduced-weight-, and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-based meshes after short- and long-term intraabdominal implantations. Surg Endosc 22, 1070–1076 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9737-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9737-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation