Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats 1

R. Fuziy, R. Artigiani Neto, E. M. Caetano Junior, A. Alves, G. J. L. Lopes Filho, M. Linhares
{"title":"Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats 1","authors":"R. Fuziy, R. Artigiani Neto, E. M. Caetano Junior, A. Alves, G. J. L. Lopes Filho, M. Linhares","doi":"10.1590/s0102-865020190070000003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose: To compare four types of mesh regarding visceral adhesions, inflammatory response and incorporation. Methods: Sixty Wistar rats were divided into four groups, with different meshes implanted intraperitoneally: polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE group); polypropylene with polydioxanone and oxidized cellulose (PCD); polypropylene (PM) and polypropylene with silicone (PMS). The variables analyzed were: area covered by adhesions, incorporation of the mesh and inflammatory reaction (evaluated histologically and by COX2 immunochemistry). Results: The PMS group had the lowest adhesion area (63.1%) and grade 1 adhesions. The ePTFE and PM groups presented almost the total area of their surface covered by adherences (99.8% and 97.7% respectively) The group ePTFE had the highest percentage of area without incorporation (42%; p <0.001) with no difference between the other meshes. The PMS group had the best incorporation rate. And the histological analysis revealed that the inflammation scores were significantly different. Conclusions: The PM mesh had higher density of adherences, larger area of adherences, adherences to organs and percentage of incorporation. ePTFE had the higher area of adherences and lower incorporation. The PMS mesh performed best in the inflammation score, had a higher incorporation and lower area of adherences, and it was considered the best type of mesh.","PeriodicalId":6993,"journal":{"name":"Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020190070000003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Purpose: To compare four types of mesh regarding visceral adhesions, inflammatory response and incorporation. Methods: Sixty Wistar rats were divided into four groups, with different meshes implanted intraperitoneally: polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE group); polypropylene with polydioxanone and oxidized cellulose (PCD); polypropylene (PM) and polypropylene with silicone (PMS). The variables analyzed were: area covered by adhesions, incorporation of the mesh and inflammatory reaction (evaluated histologically and by COX2 immunochemistry). Results: The PMS group had the lowest adhesion area (63.1%) and grade 1 adhesions. The ePTFE and PM groups presented almost the total area of their surface covered by adherences (99.8% and 97.7% respectively) The group ePTFE had the highest percentage of area without incorporation (42%; p <0.001) with no difference between the other meshes. The PMS group had the best incorporation rate. And the histological analysis revealed that the inflammation scores were significantly different. Conclusions: The PM mesh had higher density of adherences, larger area of adherences, adherences to organs and percentage of incorporation. ePTFE had the higher area of adherences and lower incorporation. The PMS mesh performed best in the inflammation score, had a higher incorporation and lower area of adherences, and it was considered the best type of mesh.
四种不同类型大鼠腹腔网状假体的比较研究
摘要目的:比较四种补片在内脏粘连、炎症反应和合并方面的差异。方法:将60只Wistar大鼠分为4组,分别腹腔内植入不同的补片:聚四氟乙烯组(ePTFE组);聚丙烯与聚二氧环酮和氧化纤维素(PCD);聚丙烯(PM)和聚丙烯有机硅(PMS)。分析的变量包括:粘连覆盖的面积、网状物的结合和炎症反应(通过组织学和COX2免疫化学评估)。结果:PMS组粘连面积最小(63.1%),粘连程度为1级。ePTFE组和PM组几乎覆盖了表面的全部附着面积(分别为99.8%和97.7%),ePTFE组的未附着面积百分比最高(42%;P <0.001),其他网格间无差异。PMS组合并率最高。组织学分析显示炎症评分差异有统计学意义。结论:PM网具有较高的黏附密度、较大的黏附面积、与器官的黏附率和掺入率。ePTFE的粘附面积较大,掺入率较低。PMS补片在炎症评分中表现最好,具有较高的掺入率和较低的粘附面积,被认为是最好的补片类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信