Experimental comparison of abdominal wall repair using different methods of enhancement by small intestinal submucosa graft

Abstract

SIS augmentation of native tissue repair does not increase strength. Replacement of abdominal wall by SIS is equally strong when compared to the SIS-augmented group; however, materials preferably rupture at the site of the implant itself.

Muscle fragments on a scaffold in rats: a potential regenerative strategy in urogynecology

“…The abdominal wall native repair model we used mimics native repair in POP surgery, but unlike the vaginal walls of women with POP, the repaired abdominal tissue in rats is normal and has a remarkable regenerative capacity. Consequently, native repair in itself was very effective as previously observed by others [12]. In future studies, repair of weakened abdominal wall tissue as in the partial abdominal wall defect previously described [22] might be a more clinically relevant model.…”

“…To create a full-thickness defect which could be sutured without creating undue harm to the animals and which could provide MFF, we made a midline incision on the abdomen followed by subcutaneous blunt dissection and used a native repair model, modified from Ozog et al [12]. The defect was made longitudinally, lateral to the rectus muscle.…”

Biomechanical findings in rats undergoing fascial reconstruction with graft materials suggested as an alternative to polypropylene

“…16 The same was observed with that other non-cross linked material (SIS), with disappearance and remodeling occurring on short-term. 10,23 We later confirmed in a study where the material was used as an augmentation of sutured native tissue repair, that SIS does disappear by 90 days, 24 leading us to conclude that there is at present no experimental proof to support the use of these resorbable materials. Chaliha et al 25 could neither demonstrate better long-term anatomical outcomes following SISaugmented anterior repairs as compared to using native tissues only.…”

Stem cell augmented mesh materials: an in vitro and in vivo study

“…Evidence indicates that biological mesh has unpredictable long-term viability and does not generate new tissue at the implant site that is strong enough [27,28]. The use of a biological graft as a scaffold for MSCs could provide an additional mechanical support to weakened tissues [29].…”