Influence of polyglecaprone 25 (Monocryl) supplementation on the biocompatibility of a polypropylene mesh for hernia repair |
| |
Authors: | K. Junge R. Rosch C. J. Krones U. Klinge P. R. Mertens P. Lynen V. Schumpelick B. Klosterhalfen |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Department of Surgery, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany;(2) German Centre of Excellence for Biomaterial and Implant Pathology, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany;(3) IZKF BIOMAT, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany;(4) Medical Clinic II, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany;(5) Institute of Pathology, Technical University of Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany |
| |
Abstract: | Background: Supplementary polyglecaprone 25 (Monocryl) monofilaments were added to a lightweight pure monofilament polypropylene mesh (PP mesh) to improve intraoperative handling (PP+M mesh). This study was designed to evaluate the influence of this additional supplementation on the biocompatibility in a rodent animal model. Methods: Two mesh materials, a composite mesh (PP+M) and the pure polypropylene variant (PP), were compared after subcutaneous implantation in a standardized rat model. Histological analysis of the inflammatory response was performed after 28, 56 and 84 days of implantation. Material absorption, inflammatory tissue reaction, fibrosis and granuloma formation were investigated, as well as the percentage of proliferating and apoptotic cells at the interface. Results: Both mesh materials showed a slight foreign body reaction involving mainly macrophages and foreign body giant cells. Total absorption of the Monocryl filaments of the PP+M mesh occurred between 56 and 84 days of implantation. Both the inflammatory and the fibrotic reaction were decreased (n.s.) in the PP+M mesh group compared to the pure PP mesh. Whereas the percentage of proliferating cells showed no significant difference, the rate of apoptotic cells was significantly decreased in the PP+M mesh group over the whole implantation period. Conclusion: Compared to the pure polypropylene mesh, our data confirm that the use of a polypropylene mesh supplemented with absorbable Monocryl filaments is feasible without additional short-term mesh-related complications in the experimental model or negative side effects on biocompatibility. |
| |
Keywords: | Mesh Polyglecaprone 25 Polypropylene Biocompatibility |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|