Adhesion formation of a polyvinylidenfluoride/polypropylene mesh for intra-abdominal placement in a rodent animal model

Abstract

The use of the novel two-component monofilament mesh structure made of polypropylene and polyvinylidenfluoride was found to be favorable regarding adhesion formation and mesh shrinkage compared to conventional mesh materials used for intra-abdominal placement.

Adhesive complications in a patient after ventral hernia IPOM repair – a case report for Videoforum

“…Also, shrinkage data are positive for PVDF -about 20% of PVDF meshes [8] vs. up to 52.4% of ePTFE meshes [8,[16][17][18]. Data on adhesion formation is surprising [8] -adhesion areas are as high as 26.8% in PP-Col (polypropylene with a collagenoxidized film), 34.6% in PVDF, and up to 57% in ePTFE meshes [8,19,20]. This means that, on average, at least one fourth of the implanted mesh surface will develop adhesions.…”

“…This means that, on average, at least one fourth of the implanted mesh surface will develop adhesions. According to Junge et al [8] there was no statistically significant difference when comparing pure polypropylene mesh with ePTFE -62.0% vs. 52.9%. Of course, when calculating adhesion score according to the Surgical Membrane Study Group [16], where besides the extent of site involvement, type of adhesions and tenacity are assessed, the pure PP mesh showed the highest values of adhesions -9.…”

“…Even when compared with the most often applied ePTFE meshes it is supposed to have some additional advantages: better long-term stability and low bending stiffness [14]. PVDF mesh induces low level of inflammation (foreign body reaction), and a minimal cellular response without onset of an excessive fibrous tissue reaction [8,14,15] compared to ePTFE and covered polypropylene meshes. Also, shrinkage data are positive for PVDF -about 20% of PVDF meshes [8] vs. up to 52.4% of ePTFE meshes [8,[16][17][18].…”

“…PVDF mesh induces low level of inflammation (foreign body reaction), and a minimal cellular response without onset of an excessive fibrous tissue reaction [8,14,15] compared to ePTFE and covered polypropylene meshes. Also, shrinkage data are positive for PVDF -about 20% of PVDF meshes [8] vs. up to 52.4% of ePTFE meshes [8,[16][17][18]. Data on adhesion formation is surprising [8] -adhesion areas are as high as 26.8% in PP-Col (polypropylene with a collagenoxidized film), 34.6% in PVDF, and up to 57% in ePTFE meshes [8,19,20].…”

“…Other examples are: ePTFE on web page (Dualmesh), a composite mesh of smooth ePTFE for the visceral side and textured polypropylene for the parietal side, polypropylene-polyglecaprone composite (Ultrapro), titanium-polypropylene composite (Timesh), polypropylene with carboxymethyl cellulose-sodium hyaluronate coating (Sepramesh), polyester with collagen-polyethylene glycol-glycerol coating (Parietex Composite), polypropylene-polydioxanone composite with oxidized cellulose coating (Proceed), and bovine pericardium (Tutomesh) [7]. Some of them show benefits, but most studies are based on animal (usually rat) models [5,7,8], with short followups. In many studies the rate of adhesions reported after this laparoscopic procedure is extremely low or even omitted [9].…”