Cargando…
Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats
PURPOSE: To compare four types of mesh regarding visceral adhesions, inflammatory response and incorporation. METHODS: Sixty Wistar rats were divided into four groups, with different meshes implanted intraperitoneally: polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE group); polypropylene with polydioxanone and oxidi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6746566/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31531538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020190070000003 |
_version_ | 1783451713370324992 |
---|---|
author | Fuziy, Rogério Aoki Artigiani, Ricardo Caetano, Elesiario Marques Alves, Ana Karina Soares Lopes, Gaspar Jesus Linhares, Marcelo Moura |
author_facet | Fuziy, Rogério Aoki Artigiani, Ricardo Caetano, Elesiario Marques Alves, Ana Karina Soares Lopes, Gaspar Jesus Linhares, Marcelo Moura |
author_sort | Fuziy, Rogério Aoki |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare four types of mesh regarding visceral adhesions, inflammatory response and incorporation. METHODS: Sixty Wistar rats were divided into four groups, with different meshes implanted intraperitoneally: polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE group); polypropylene with polydioxanone and oxidized cellulose (PCD); polypropylene (PM) and polypropylene with silicone (PMS). The variables analyzed were: area covered by adhesions, incorporation of the mesh and inflammatory reaction (evaluated histologically and by COX2 immunochemistry). RESULTS: The PMS group had the lowest adhesion area (63.1%) and grade 1 adhesions. The ePTFE and PM groups presented almost the total area of their surface covered by adherences (99.8% and 97.7% respectively) The group ePTFE had the highest percentage of area without incorporation (42%; p <0.001) with no difference between the other meshes. The PMS group had the best incorporation rate. And the histological analysis revealed that the inflammation scores were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The PM mesh had higher density of adherences, larger area of adherences, adherences to organs and percentage of incorporation. ePTFE had the higher area of adherences and lower incorporation. The PMS mesh performed best in the inflammation score, had a higher incorporation and lower area of adherences, and it was considered the best type of mesh. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6746566 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67465662019-09-25 Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats Fuziy, Rogério Aoki Artigiani, Ricardo Caetano, Elesiario Marques Alves, Ana Karina Soares Lopes, Gaspar Jesus Linhares, Marcelo Moura Acta Cir Bras Original Article PURPOSE: To compare four types of mesh regarding visceral adhesions, inflammatory response and incorporation. METHODS: Sixty Wistar rats were divided into four groups, with different meshes implanted intraperitoneally: polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE group); polypropylene with polydioxanone and oxidized cellulose (PCD); polypropylene (PM) and polypropylene with silicone (PMS). The variables analyzed were: area covered by adhesions, incorporation of the mesh and inflammatory reaction (evaluated histologically and by COX2 immunochemistry). RESULTS: The PMS group had the lowest adhesion area (63.1%) and grade 1 adhesions. The ePTFE and PM groups presented almost the total area of their surface covered by adherences (99.8% and 97.7% respectively) The group ePTFE had the highest percentage of area without incorporation (42%; p <0.001) with no difference between the other meshes. The PMS group had the best incorporation rate. And the histological analysis revealed that the inflammation scores were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The PM mesh had higher density of adherences, larger area of adherences, adherences to organs and percentage of incorporation. ePTFE had the higher area of adherences and lower incorporation. The PMS mesh performed best in the inflammation score, had a higher incorporation and lower area of adherences, and it was considered the best type of mesh. Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia 2019-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6746566/ /pubmed/31531538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020190070000003 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Fuziy, Rogério Aoki Artigiani, Ricardo Caetano, Elesiario Marques Alves, Ana Karina Soares Lopes, Gaspar Jesus Linhares, Marcelo Moura Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats |
title | Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats
|
title_full | Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats
|
title_fullStr | Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats
|
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats
|
title_short | Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats
|
title_sort | comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6746566/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31531538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020190070000003 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fuziyrogerioaoki comparativestudyoffourdifferenttypesofintraperitonealmeshprosthesesinrats AT artigianiricardo comparativestudyoffourdifferenttypesofintraperitonealmeshprosthesesinrats AT caetanoelesiariomarques comparativestudyoffourdifferenttypesofintraperitonealmeshprosthesesinrats AT alvesanakarinasoares comparativestudyoffourdifferenttypesofintraperitonealmeshprosthesesinrats AT lopesgasparjesus comparativestudyoffourdifferenttypesofintraperitonealmeshprosthesesinrats AT linharesmarcelomoura comparativestudyoffourdifferenttypesofintraperitonealmeshprosthesesinrats |