Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of two types of preperitoneal mesh prostheses in stoma surgery: application to an animal model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study is to compare the integration of two types of prostheses (high and low density, written as HD and LD, respectively) implanted around the stoma to reinforce the abdominal wall to prevent parastomal eventration. The surgical technique used for preperitoneal placement of the prostheses is also described.

Materials and methods

We performed terminal sigmoid colostomies on 16 porcine animals. In 8 of the animals, HD prostheses were placed around the stoma in preperitoneal position, while in the other 8, we implanted wide-pore LD prostheses using the same surgical technique. The following macroscopic variables were then measured: adhesion, extrusion, stenosis, and retraction. A morphological study was also carried out to evaluate the foreign body reaction and the formation of neovascularization and collagen. All animals were killed 3 months after surgery.

Results

Differences were observed with regard to retraction (47 ± 17.8 % for HD vs. 55 ± 19.4 % for LD) and extrusion (50 % for HD vs. 0 % for LD). These differences did not reach statistical significance. There was a great amount of scarring for both types of prostheses, with stomal stenosis being observed in all cases. The number and consistency of intra-abdominal adhesions was low and similar for both types of prostheses. Neither eventration nor necrosis was observed for either type. With regard to the tissue response, we observed both fibrosis and calcification phenomena in the peristomal areas of the LD prostheses. In the HD group, there was both a lower scarring response and a higher foreign body response, with the areas of the prostheses remaining intact.

Conclusions

Both types of prostheses are appropriate for preperitoneal placement in the experimental model used, leading to few intra-abdominal adhesions. Still, due to their integration characteristics, LD prostheses are more appropriate for implanting around the colon since they do not seem to lead to extrusions. When using prostheses, however, it is also essential to consider the important phenomenon of retraction, which is more common with LD mesh.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Israelsson LA (2008) Parastomal hernias. Surg Clin North Am 88(1):113–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Devlin HB (1973) Colostomy. Indications, management and complications. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 52(6):392–408

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goligher J (1987) Cirugía del ano, recto y colon. 2nd ed. pp 686–7

  4. Bouillot JL (2002) Traitement chirurgical des complications des colostomies. In: Editions Scientifiques et Médicales Elsevier SAS, editor. Techniques chirurgicales—Appareil digestif. Paris, pp 1–12

  5. LeBlanc KA, Bellanger DE, Whitaker JM, Hausmann MG (2005) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair. Hernia 9(2):140–144

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mancini GJ, McClusky DA III, Khaitan L, Goldenberg EA, Heniford BT, Novitsky YW, Park AE, Kavic S, LeBlanc KA, Elieson MJ, Voeller GR, Ramshaw BJ (2007) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a nonslit mesh technique. Surg Endosc 21(9):1487–1491

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Muysoms F (2007) Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias with a modified sugarbaker technique. Acta Chir Belg 107(4):476–480

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zacharakis E, Hettige R, Purkayastha S, Aggarwal R, Athanasiou T, Darzi A, Ziprin P (2008) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: a description of the technique and initial results. Surg Innov 15(2):85–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Serra Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J, Darnell A, Mora-Lopez L, Alcantara-Moral M, Ayguavives-Garnica I, Navarro-Soto S (2009) Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 249(4):583–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Janes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA (2004) Randomized clinical trial of the use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 91(3):280–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gogenur I, Mortensen J, Harvald T, Rosenberg J, Fischer A (2006) Prevention of parastomal hernia by placement of a polypropylene mesh at the primary operation. Dis Colon Rectum 49(8):1131–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marimuthu K, Vijayasekar C, Ghosh D, Mathew G (2006) Prevention of parastomal hernia using preperitoneal mesh: a prospective observational study. Colorectal Dis 8(8):672–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schug-Pass C, Tamme C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2008) A lightweight, partially absorbable mesh (Ultrapro) for endoscopic hernia repair: experimental biocompatibility results obtained with a porcine model. Surg Endosc 22(4):1100–1106 Epub 2007 Oct 26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Junge K, Klinge U, Rosch R, Klosterhalfen B, Schumperlick V (2002) Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 26:1472–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Böhm G, Binnebösel M, Kräling E, Stanzel S, Anurov M, Titkova S et al (2011) Influence of the elasticity module of synthetic and natural polymeric tissue substitutes on the mobility of the diaphragm and healing process in a rabbit model. J Biomater Appl 25(8):771–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Seiler C, Baumann P, Kienle P, Kuthe A, Kuhlgatz J, Engemman R, Frankenberg M, Knaebel HP (2010) A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, double blind pilot-study to evaluate safety and efficacy of the non-absorbable Optilene® Mesh Elastic versus the partly absorbable Ultrapro® Mesh for incisional hernia repair. BMC Surg 10:21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Scales JT (1953) Tissue reactions to synthetic materials. Proc R Soc Med 46:647–652

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bellón JM, Bujan J, Contreras LA, Carrera-San Martin A, Jurado F (1996) Comparison of a new type of polytetrafluorethylene patch (mycro mesh) and polypropylene prosthesis (Marlex) for repair of abdominal wall defects. J Am Coll Surg 83:11–18

    Google Scholar 

  19. Demir U, Mihmanli M, Coskun H, Dilege E, Kalyoncu A, Altinli E, Gunduz B, Yilmaz B (2005) Comparison of prosthetic materials in incisional hernia repair. Surg Today 35:223–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Silvestre AC, De Mathia GB, Fagundes DG, Medeiros LR, Rosa MI (2011) Shrinkage evaluation of heavyweight and lightweight polypropylene meshes in inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia 15:629–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bellón JM, Rodriguez M, García- Honduvilla N, Pascual G, Bujan J (2007) Partially absorbable meshes for hernia repair offer advantages over nonabsorbable meshes. Am J Surg 194:68–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dirk W, Inge S, Orlin B (2006) Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less. Biol Response 8:1581–1591

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aldridge AJ, Simson JN (2001) Erosion and perforation of colon by synthetic mesh in a recurrent paracolostomy hernia. Hernia 5:110–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant FISCAM (Foundation for Research in Castilla la Mancha) to create novel research groups. File number. AN/2006/15.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mancha-Centro General Hospital, Avenida de la Constitución 3, 13600, Alcázar de San Juan, Ciudad Real, Spain

    G. Tadeo

  2. Department of Surgery, Mancha-Centro General Hospital, Alcázar de San Juan, Ciudad Real, Spain

    J. Picazo

  3. Department of Surgery, Mancha-Centro General Hospital, Alcázar de San Juan, Ciudad Real, Spain

    C. Moreno

  4. Department of Pathology, Mancha-Centro General Hospital, Alcázar de San Juan, Ciudad Real, Spain

    R. Cuesta

Authors
  1. G. Tadeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Picazo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Cuesta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Tadeo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tadeo, G., Picazo, J., Moreno, C. et al. A comparison of two types of preperitoneal mesh prostheses in stoma surgery: application to an animal model. Hernia 16, 669–675 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0966-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0966-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation