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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fuziy, Rogério Aoki, Artigiani, Ricardo, Caetano, Elesiario Marques, Alves, Ana Karina Soares, Lopes, Gaspar Jesus, Linhares, Marcelo Moura
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