Objective To compare the host response, architectural integration and tensile strength of polypropylene and porcine small intestine submucosa-derived implants in a rat model. Design Experimental study.Setting Center for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.Sample Forty-eight adult male Wistar rats weighing 220-250 g randomised to receive either implant.Methods Full thickness abdominal wall defects were primarily repaired with polypropylene mesh (Marlex) (MX group) or porcine small intestine submucosa (Surgisis) (SIS group). Animals were sacrificed at 7, 14, 30 and 90 days after implantation. Main outcome measures The presence of herniation, infection and intra-peritoneal adhesions. Change in thickness and tensile strength of implant. Histopathological and immunohistochemical appearances of inflammatory response and collagen deposition. Results Implants from the SIS group showed a short term increase in thickness in the first 14 days. Formation of adhesions was significantly more intense in the MX group at 30 days, and more extensive in the SIS group at 90 days. Tensile strength increased over time in both groups but was significantly lower in the SIS group than the MX group at 30 days. Implants in the MX group showed a more pronounced inflammatory response and more pronounced new vessel formation than the SIS group. Collagen formation was initially more fibrous and better organised in the MX group but became greater in the SIS group at 90 days. Conclusions Biologically derived implant material induced a less pronounced inflammatory response and differences in collagen deposition. At 30 days tensile strength was weaker in the biological implant group but was equivalent by 90 days. These differences may have implications for the in vivo performance of the materials.

Objective

Implant materials are increasingly being used in an effort to reduce recurrence after prolapse repair with native tissues. Surgeons should be aware of the biology behind both the disease as well as the host response to various implants. We will discuss insights into the biology behind hernia and abdominal fascial defects. Those lessons from "herniology" will, wherever possible, be applied to pelvic organ prolapse (POP) problems. Then we will deal with available animal models, for both the underlying disease and surgical repair. Then we will go over the features of implants and describe how the host responds to implantation. Methodology of such experiments will be briefly explained for the clinician not involved in experimentation. As we discuss the different materials available on the market, we will summarize some results of recent experiments by our group.

Introduction and hypothesisMajor levator ani abnormalities (LAA) may lead to abnormal pelvic floor muscle contraction (pfmC) and secondarily to stress urinary incontinence (SUI), prolapse, or fecal incontinence (FI).MethodsA retrospective observational study included 352 symptomatic patients to determine prevalence of LAA in underactive pfmC and the relationship with symptoms. On 2D/3D transperineal ultrasound, PfmC was subjectively assessed as underactive (UpfmC) or normal (NpfmC) and quantified. LAA, defined as a complete avulsion of the pubic bone, was analyzed using tomographic ultrasound imaging.ResultsLAA were found in 53.8% of women with UpfmC versus 16.1% in NpfmC (P < 0.001). Patients with UpfmC were less likely to reduce hiatal area on pfmC (mean 7% reduction vs 25% in NpfmC (P < 0.001)). An UpfmC was associated with FI (P = 0.002), not with SUI or prolapse of the anterior and central compartment.ConclusionAn underactive pfmC is associated with increased prevalence of LAA and FI.

The biomechanical behaviour of the tested lightweights does not mimic that of native controls. Weight reduction does not prevent shrinkage.