Cargando…

Prosthetic Meshes for Repair of Hernia and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Comparison of Biomechanical Properties

This study aims to compare the mechanical behavior of synthetic meshes used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and hernia repair. The analysis is based on a comprehensive experimental protocol, which included uniaxial and biaxial tension, cyclic loading and testing of meshes in dry conditions and embed...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maurer, Manfred M., Röhrnbauer, Barbara, Feola, Andrew, Deprest, Jan, Mazza, Edoardo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5455575/
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma8052794
Descripción
Sumario:This study aims to compare the mechanical behavior of synthetic meshes used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and hernia repair. The analysis is based on a comprehensive experimental protocol, which included uniaxial and biaxial tension, cyclic loading and testing of meshes in dry conditions and embedded into an elastomer matrix. Implants are grouped as POP or hernia meshes, as indicated by the manufacturer, and their stiffness in different loading configurations, area density and porosity are compared. Hernia meshes might be expected to be stiffer, since they are implanted into a stiffer tissue (abdominal wall) than POP meshes (vaginal wall). Contrary to this, hernia meshes have a generally lower secant stiffness than POP meshes. For example, DynaMesh PRS, a POP mesh, is up to two orders of magnitude stiffer in all tested configurations than DynaMesh ENDOLAP, a hernia mesh. Additionally, lighter, large pore implants might be expected to be more compliant, which was shown to be generally not true. In particular, Restorelle, the lightest mesh with the largest pores, is less compliant in the tested configurations than Surgipro, the heaviest, small-pore implant. Our study raises the question of defining a meaningful design target for meshes in terms of mechanical biocompatibility.