SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eastern Journal of Medicine / 2017 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

Histopathological and mechanical properties of different meshes in a rat model of pelvic prolapse surgery

Gülhan Güneş ELÇİ
Pages
45–52
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Prolene® mesh had superior muscle penetration and tensile strength compared to the other materials.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Different types of mesh materials are used to support pelvic structures in urogynecologic procedures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Group 1 served as a sham -operated control (n=6); Prolene® was used in group 2 (n=6), UltraPro® in group 3 (n=6), Vypro II® in group 4 (n=6), and Permacol® in group 5 (n=6).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Prolene® mesh had superior muscle penetration and tensile strength compared to the other materials.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Different types of mesh materials are used to support pelvic structures in urogynecologic procedures. Our aim was to compare histopathological and mechanical effects of Prolene®, UltraPro®, Vypro II®, and Permacol® meshes used in pelvic organ prolapse. Thirty Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into five groups. Group 1 served as a sham -operated control (n=6); Prolene® was used in group 2 (n=6), UltraPro® in group 3 (n=6), Vypro II® in group 4 (n=6), and Permacol® in group 5 (n=6). A 0.5 × 1 cm mesh was placed between the paravaginal tissue and bladder. After 12 weeks, the rats were reoperated and meshes were excised. Histopathological tissue reactions were compared. The muscle penetration rate was 67% in the Prolene® group, which was significantly higher than that in the other groups (p=0.026). Minimum preserved postoperative surface area was seen with Prolene® at 0.31 cm2 and maximum with UltraPro® at 0.45 cm2, which was statistically significant. UltraPro® had the most preserved postoperative surface area and less shrinkage than the other meshes. The mesh materials cause an inflammatory reaction in surrounding tissue. Prolene® mesh had superior muscle penetration and tensile strength compared to the other materials.

🔖

Cite This Article

ELÇİ, G. G. (2017). Histopathological and mechanical properties of different meshes in a rat model of pelvic prolapse surgery. Eastern Journal of Medicine, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 45–52. https://ajindex.com/articles/204739

References (14)

  1. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, Wilson D. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG 2000; 107: 1460-1470
  2. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 501-506
  3. Natale F, La Penna C, Padoa A, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing Gynemesh, a synthetic mesh, and Pelvicol, a biologic graft, in the surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009; 20: 75-81
  4. Şentürk MB, Güraslan H, Çakmak Y, Ekin M. Bilateral sacrospinous fixation without hysterectomy: 18-month follow-up. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2015; 16: 102-106
  5. Dora CD, Dimarco DS, Zobitz ME, Elliott DS. Time dependent variations in biomechanical properties of cadaveric fascia, porcine dermis, porcine small intestine submucosa, polypropylene mesh and autologous fascia in the rabbit model: implications for sling surgery. J Urol 2004; 171: 1970-1973
  6. FDA Safety Communication: UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/Ale rtsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. (Accessed on November 29, 2012)
  7. Roth CC, Holley TD, Winters JC. Synthetic slings: which material, which approach. Curr Opin Urol 2006; 16: 234-239
  8. Konstantinovic ML, Lagae P, Zheng F, et al. Comparison of host response to polypropylene and non-cross-linked porcine small intestine serosal-derived collagen implants in a rat model. BJOG 2005; 112: 1554-1560
  9. Aksoy E, Çakmak A, Orazakunov E, Gürel M. Evaluation of mesh fixation strength after placement. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine 2009; 62: 9-43
  10. Utiyama EM, Rosa MB, Andres Mde P, et al. Polypropylene and polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Ultrapro) meshes in the repair of incisional hernia in rats. Acta Cir Bras 2015; 30: 376-381
  11. Rodríguez LV, Blander DS, Raz S. New millennium, new slings. Curr Urol Rep 2001; 2: 399-406
  12. Ghoniem GM, Kapoor DS. Nonautologous sling materials. Curr Urol Rep 2001; 2: 357-363
  13. Ulmsten U, Henriksson L, Johnson P, Varhos G. An ambulatory surgical procedure under local anesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 1996; 7: 81-86
  14. Atherton MJ, Stanton SL. The tension-free vaginal tape reviewed: an evidence-based re