Physicomechanical evaluation of absorbable and nonabsorbable barrier composite meshes for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair
- 26 October 2010
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Surgical Endoscopy
- Vol. 25 (5) , 1541-1552
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1432-0
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the physicomechanical properties of composite prostheses for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) through standard testing and a proposed classification system. Seven prostheses (four with absorbable barriers and 3 with nonabsorbable barriers) were evaluated. The barrier layer was removed, after which the area of the interstices and the diameter of the filaments were determined. The barrier layer was left intact during thickness, density, suture retention strength, tear resistance, uniaxial tensile, and ball-burst testing. Specimens were oriented parallel or perpendicular to their longest dimension during testing. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s posttest or an unpaired, two-tailed t-test was performed to determine whether differences existed due to mesh or orientation, and a p value <0.05 was considered significant. Significant differences were observed between mesh types and due to the orientation of the mesh during testing. Of the absorbable barrier meshes, Bard Sepramesh IP Composite demonstrated the greatest suture retention and tear strengths, followed by C-QUR mesh. Of the permanent barrier meshes, DUALMESH demonstrated the greatest suture retention strength in the perpendicular direction, followed by Bard Composix E/X. DUALMESH and Bard Composix E/X demonstrated equivalent suture retention strength in the parallel direction and equivalent tear resistance in both testing directions. All meshes demonstrated tensile strengths greater than the physiologically relevant range of 16–32 N/cm. This study provided a basic understanding of how the structural aspects of each mesh design influence functionality. Differences between composite barrier prostheses commonly used for LVHR were observed due to barrier type, mesh type, and orientation. A set of standard testing techniques and a classification system also were presented to define fully the properties of these materials.Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of Acute Fixation Strength for Mechanical Tacking Devices and Fibrin Sealant Versus Polypropylene Suture for Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia RepairSurgical Innovation, 2010
- Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshesHernia, 2009
- Degradation of mesh coatings and intraperitoneal adhesion formation in an experimental modelBritish Journal of Surgery, 2009
- 120-Day Comparative Analysis of Adhesion Grade and Quantity, Mesh Contraction, and Tissue Response to a Novel Omega-3 Fatty Acid Bioabsorbable Barrier Macroporous Mesh After Intraperitoneal PlacementSurgical Innovation, 2008
- Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wallBritish Journal of Surgery, 2003
- Prevention of Adhesion to Prosthetic MeshAnnals of Surgery, 2003
- Tensile strength of mesh fixation methods in laparoscopic incisional hernia repairSurgical Endoscopy, 2002
- Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implantsHernia, 2001
- Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshesHernia, 2001
- The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defectsHernia, 2001