Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resistance to adhesion formation: A comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:

New materials have been devised to prevent postoperative adhesions when placing a prosthesis in contact with abdominal contents.

Methods:

Eighty rats underwent laparotomy and denudation of the serosa of the cecum and peritoneal covering of the abdominal wall. Five treated mesh products (Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, Sepramesh, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh) and one untreated mesh product (untreated Parietene) were randomly placed between the cecum and abdominal wall. A group without mesh was used as control. The animals were sacrificed at 21 days following surgery and analyzed for the presence of adhesions.

Results:

The incidence of adhesion formation, mean adhesion area, maximum adhesion length, and strength of adhesion separation were similar between Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, and Bard Composix E/X, and they were significantly less than with Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group. Gore-Tex Dual Mesh resulted in less adhesions, adhesion area, mean strength of separation, and work of separation than the untreated Parietene group and the control group. Sepramesh resulted in less strength and work of separation compared to the control group.

Conclusions:

The incidence of adhesions and work and strength of adhesion separation are reduced when using a treated mesh, compared to the untreated mesh and the control group without mesh. Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh were superior to Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group in the prevention of adhesion formation.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, van der Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, Uzermans JN, Boelhouwer Ru, de Vires BC, Salu MK, Wereldsma JC, Bruijnincky CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE (1998) The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity. Literature review and clinical experience. J Am Coll Surg 186:352–367

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Deguzman LJ, Nyhus LM, Yared G, Schlesinger PK (1995) Colocutaneous fistula formation following polypropylene mesh placement for repair of a ventral hernia: diagnosis by colonoscopy. Endoscopy 27:257–261

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lamb JP, Vitale T. Kaminski DL (1983) Comparative evaluation of synthetic meshes used for abdominal wall replacement. Surgery 93:643–648

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Menzies D (1993) Postoperative adhesions: Their treatment and relevance in clinical practice [review]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75:147–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ray NF, Larsen JW Jr, Stillman RJ, Jacobs RJ (1993) Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176:271–6

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pijlam BM, Dörr PJ, Brommer EJP, Vemer HM (1994) Prevention of adhesions (review) Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 53:155–163

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ellis H (1982) The causes and prevention of intestinal adhesions. Br J Surg 69:241–243

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Luijendijk RW, de Lange DCD, Wauters CC, Hop WC, Duron JJ, Pailler JL, Camprodon BR, Holmdahl L, van Geldorp HJ, Jeekel J (1996) Foreign material in postoperative adhesions. Ann Surg 223:242–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Risberg B (1997) Adhesions: Preventive strategies. Eur J Surg (Suppl) 577:32–39

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harris ES, Morgan RF, Rodeheaver GT (1995) Analysis of the kinetics of peritoneal adhesion formation in the rat and evaluation of potential anti-adhesive agents. Surgery 117:663–669

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bellón JM, García-Carranza A, Jurado F, García-Honduvilla N, Carrera-San Martín A, Buján J (2001) Peritoneal regeneration after implant of a composite prosthesis in the abdominal wall. World J Surg 25:147–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cristoforoni PM, Kim YB, Preys Z, Lay RY, Mortz FJ (1996) Adhesion formation after incisional hernia repair: A randomized porcine trial. Am Surg 62:935–938

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Farmer L, Ayoub M, Warejcka D, Southerland S, Freeman A, Solis M (1998) Adhesion formation after intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal implantation of polypropylene mesh. Am Surg 64:144–146

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Malazgirt Z, Ulusoy AN, Gok Y, Karagoz F, Tac K (2000) Bioabsorbable membrane prevents adhesions to polypropylene mesh in rats. Hernia 4:129–133

    Google Scholar 

  16. Burns JW, Skinner K, Colt J, Sheidlin A, Bronson R, Vaacobi Y, Goldberg EP (1995) Prevention of tissue injury and postsurgical adhesions by precoating tissues with hyaluronic acid solutions. J Surg Res 59:644–652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eller R, Bukhari R, Poulos E, McIntire D, Jenevein E (1997) Intraperitoneal adhesions in laparoscopic and standard open herniorrhaphy. An experimental study. Surg Endosc 11:24–28

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garrard CL, Clements RH, Nanney L, Davidson JM, Richards WO (1999) Adhesion formation is reduced after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:10–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hernia Institute and Endosurgery Unit Surgery Department H-124 B, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

    R. Gonzalez & B. J. Ramshaw

  2. Plastic Surgery Research, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Va. , USA

    G. T. Rodeheaver, D. L. Moody & P. A. Foresman

Authors
  1. R. Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. T. Rodeheaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. L. Moody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. A. Foresman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. J. Ramshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. J. Ramshaw.

Additional information

Disclosure statement: This study was sponsored by: Sofradim, Trévoux, France

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gonzalez, R., Rodeheaver, G.T., Moody, D.L. et al. Resistance to adhesion formation: A comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity. Hernia 8, 213–219 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-004-0213-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-004-0213-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation