Cargando…
BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL?
BACKGROUND: In the definition of the mesh to be used to correct hernias, porosity, amount of absorbable material and polypropylene should be considered in the different stages of healing process. AIM: To evaluate the inflammatory reaction in the use of macro and microporous meshes of high and low we...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8195468/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34133524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020210001e1577 |
_version_ | 1783706508300648448 |
---|---|
author | UTRABO, Carlos Alberto Lima CZECZKO, Nicolau Gregori BUSATO, Cesar Roberto MONTEMÓR-NETTO, Mário Rodrigues LIPINSKI, Leandro MALAFAIA, Osvaldo |
author_facet | UTRABO, Carlos Alberto Lima CZECZKO, Nicolau Gregori BUSATO, Cesar Roberto MONTEMÓR-NETTO, Mário Rodrigues LIPINSKI, Leandro MALAFAIA, Osvaldo |
author_sort | UTRABO, Carlos Alberto Lima |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In the definition of the mesh to be used to correct hernias, porosity, amount of absorbable material and polypropylene should be considered in the different stages of healing process. AIM: To evaluate the inflammatory reaction in the use of macro and microporous meshes of high and low weight in the repair of defects in the abdominal wall of rats. METHODS: Ninety Wistar rats (Rattus norvegicus albinus) were used. The animals were submitted to similar surgical procedures, with lesion of the ventral abdominal wall, maintaining the integrity of the parietal peritoneum and correction using the studied meshes (Prolene(®), Ultrapro(®) and Bard Soft(®)). Euthanasia was performed at 30, 60 and 120 days after surgery. The abdominal wall segments were submitted to histological analysis using H&E, Masson’s trichrome, immunohistochemistry, picrosirius red and tensiometric evaluation. RESULTS: On the 120(th) day, the tensiometric analysis was superior with Ultrapro(®) macroporous mesh. The inflammatory process score showed a significant prevalence of subacute process at the beginning and at the end of the study. Microporous meshes showed block encapsulation and in macroporous predominance of filamentous encapsulation. CONCLUSION: The Ultrapro(®) mesh showed better performance than the others in healing process of the abdominal wall. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8195468 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81954682021-06-24 BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL? UTRABO, Carlos Alberto Lima CZECZKO, Nicolau Gregori BUSATO, Cesar Roberto MONTEMÓR-NETTO, Mário Rodrigues LIPINSKI, Leandro MALAFAIA, Osvaldo Arq Bras Cir Dig Original Article BACKGROUND: In the definition of the mesh to be used to correct hernias, porosity, amount of absorbable material and polypropylene should be considered in the different stages of healing process. AIM: To evaluate the inflammatory reaction in the use of macro and microporous meshes of high and low weight in the repair of defects in the abdominal wall of rats. METHODS: Ninety Wistar rats (Rattus norvegicus albinus) were used. The animals were submitted to similar surgical procedures, with lesion of the ventral abdominal wall, maintaining the integrity of the parietal peritoneum and correction using the studied meshes (Prolene(®), Ultrapro(®) and Bard Soft(®)). Euthanasia was performed at 30, 60 and 120 days after surgery. The abdominal wall segments were submitted to histological analysis using H&E, Masson’s trichrome, immunohistochemistry, picrosirius red and tensiometric evaluation. RESULTS: On the 120(th) day, the tensiometric analysis was superior with Ultrapro(®) macroporous mesh. The inflammatory process score showed a significant prevalence of subacute process at the beginning and at the end of the study. Microporous meshes showed block encapsulation and in macroporous predominance of filamentous encapsulation. CONCLUSION: The Ultrapro(®) mesh showed better performance than the others in healing process of the abdominal wall. Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva 2021-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8195468/ /pubmed/34133524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020210001e1577 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 |
spellingShingle | Original Article UTRABO, Carlos Alberto Lima CZECZKO, Nicolau Gregori BUSATO, Cesar Roberto MONTEMÓR-NETTO, Mário Rodrigues LIPINSKI, Leandro MALAFAIA, Osvaldo BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL? |
title | BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL? |
title_full | BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL? |
title_fullStr | BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL? |
title_full_unstemmed | BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL? |
title_short | BETWEEN PROLENE(®), ULTRAPRO(®) AND BARD SOFT(®) MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL? |
title_sort | between prolene(®), ultrapro(®) and bard soft(®) meshes which presents the best performance in the repair of the abdominal wall? |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8195468/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34133524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020210001e1577 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT utrabocarlosalbertolima betweenproleneultraproandbardsoftmesheswhichpresentsthebestperformanceintherepairoftheabdominalwall AT czeczkonicolaugregori betweenproleneultraproandbardsoftmesheswhichpresentsthebestperformanceintherepairoftheabdominalwall AT busatocesarroberto betweenproleneultraproandbardsoftmesheswhichpresentsthebestperformanceintherepairoftheabdominalwall AT montemornettomariorodrigues betweenproleneultraproandbardsoftmesheswhichpresentsthebestperformanceintherepairoftheabdominalwall AT lipinskileandro betweenproleneultraproandbardsoftmesheswhichpresentsthebestperformanceintherepairoftheabdominalwall AT malafaiaosvaldo betweenproleneultraproandbardsoftmesheswhichpresentsthebestperformanceintherepairoftheabdominalwall |