Bioprosthetic mesh of bacterial cellulose for treatment of abdominal muscle aponeurotic defect in rat model

  • Raquel Kelner Silveira
  • Antônio Roberto Barros Coelho
  • Flávia Cristina Morone Pinto
  • Amanda Vasconcelos de Albuquerque
  • Djalma Agripino de Melo Filho
  • José Lamartine de Andrade Aguiar
Biocompatibility Studies Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biocompatibility Studies


The use of meshes for treatment of hernias continues to draw attention of surgeons and the industry in the search of an ideal prosthesis. The purpose of this work is to use meshes manufactured from bacterial cellulose, evaluate their organic tissue interaction and compare with an expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE’s) prosthesis used to repair acute defect of muscle aponeurotic induced in rats. Forty-five male Wistar rats were classified using the following criteria: (1) surgical repair of acute muscle aponeurotic defect with perforated bacterial cellulose film (PBC; n = 18); (2) compact bacterial cellulose film (CBC; n = 12) and (3) ePTFE; (n = 15). After postoperative period, rectangles (2 × 3 cm) including prosthesis, muscles and peritoneum were collected for biomechanical, histological and stereological analysis. In all cases, the maximum acceptable error probability for rejecting the null hypothesis was 5 %. Between PBC and CBC samples, the variables of strain (P = 0.011) and elasticity (P = 0.035) were statistically different. The same was found between CBC and ePTFE (elasticity, P = 0.000; strain, P = 0.009). PBC differed from CBC for giant cells (P = 0.001) and new blood vessels (P = 0.000). In conclusion, there was biological integration and biomechanical elasticity of PBC; therefore, we think this option should be considered as a new alternative biomaterial for use as a bio prosthesis.


Sugarcane Giant Cell Collagen Fiber Bacterial Cellulose Polypropylene Mesh 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Research Performed at Center for Experimental Surgery of the Federal University of Pernambuco UFPE, Recife-PE, Brazil. Research Performed at collaboration with the Laboratory of Human Reproduction of the University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), Laboratory of Immunopathology Keizo Asami (LIKA), and the Department of Nuclear Energy (DEN) of the Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife/PE, Brazil. The English version of this text has been revised by a native speaker, Sidney Pratt, Canadian, BA, MAT (The Johns Hopkins University), RSA diploma (TEFL) University of Cambridge.

Financial source

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors have read the journal’s policy and there are no potential conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Usher FC, Ochsner J, Tuttle LL Jr. Use of marlex mesh in the repair of incisional hernias. Am Surg. 1958;24:969–74.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coda A, Bendavid R, Botto-Micca F, Bossotti M, Bona A. Structural alterations of prosthetic meshes in humans. Hernia. 2003;7:29–34.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jenkins SD, Klamer TW, Parteka JJ, Condon RE. A comparison of prosthetic materials used to repair abdominal wall defects. Surgery. 1983;94:392–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cobb WS, Burns JM, Kercher KW, Matthews BD. James Norton H, Todd Heniford B. Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults. J Surg Res. 2005;129:231–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachman S, Ramshaw B. Prosthetic material in ventral hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88:101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blatnik J, Jin J, Rosen M. Abdominal hernia repair with bridging acellular dermal matrix—an expensive hernia sac. Am J Surg. 2008;196:47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bilsel Y, Abci I. The search for ideal hernia repair; mesh materials and types. Int J Surg. 2012;10:317–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grevious MA, Cohen M, Jean-Pierre F, Herrmann GE. Structural and functional anatomy of the abdominal wall. Clin Plast Surg. 2006;33:169–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Binnebosel M, von Trotha KT, Jansen PL, Conze J, Neumann UP, Junge K. Biocompatibility of prosthetic meshes in abdominal surgery. Semin Immunopathol. 2011;3:235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paterson-Beedle M, Kennedy JF, Melo FAD, Lloyd LL, Medeiros V. A cellulosic exopolysaccharide produced from sugarcane molasses by a Zoogloea sp. Carbohydr Polym. 2000;42:375–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coelho ER Jr, Costa LOBF, Alencar AV, Barbosa APG, Pinto FCM, Aguiar JLA. Prevention of peritoneal adhesion using a bacterial cellulose hydrogel, in experimental study. Acta Cir Bras. 2015;30:194–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aguiar JL, Lins EM, Marques SR, Coelho AR, Rossiter RDO, Melo RJ. Sugarcane biopolymer patch in femoral artery angioplasty on dogs. Acta Cir Bras. 2007;22:77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Barros-Marques SR, Marques-Lins E, de Albuquerque MC, de Andrade-Aguiar JL. Sugarcane biopolymer patch in femoral vein angioplasty on dogs. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55:517–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinto FC, De-Oliveira AC, De-Carvalho RR, Gomes-Carneiro MR, Coelho DR, Lima SV, Paumgartten FJ, Aguiar JL. Pinto Acute toxicity, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and antigenotoxic effects of a cellulosic exopolysaccharide obtained from sugarcane molasses Carbohydr. Polym. 2016;137:556–60. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.10.071.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pita PCC, Pinto FCM, Lira MMM, Melo FAD, Ferreira LM, Aguiar JLA. Biocompatibility of the bacterial cellulose hydrogel in subcutaneous tissue of rabbits. Acta Cir Bras. 2015;30:296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martins AGS, Lima SVC, Araujo LAP, Vilar FO, Cavalcante NTP. A wet dressing for hypospadias surgery. Int Braz J Urol. 2013;39:408–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carvalho AM, Santos MM, Barkokébas BB, Andrade Aguiar JL, Lima SV, Dambros M. Characterization of the deposition of collagen fibers and lithogenic potential in bladder of rats submitted to a sugar cane biopolymer graft. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38:544–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Germani G, Hytiroglou P, Fotiadu A, Burroughs AK, Dhillon AP. Assessment of fibrosis and cirrhosis in liver biopsies: an update. Semin Liver Dis. 2011;31:82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang Y, de Boer WB, Adams LA, MacQuillan G, Rossi E, Rigby P, et al. Image analysis of liver collagen using sirius red is more accurate and correlates better with serum fibrosis markers than trichrome. Liver Int. 2013;33:1249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trabuco EC, Zobitz ME, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB. Effect of host response (incorporation, encapsulation, mixed incorporation and encapsulation, or resorption) on the tensile strength of graft-reinforced repair in the rat ventral hernia model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:638–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Falcão SC, Coelho AR. Evêncio Neto J. Biomechanical evaluation of microbial cellulose (Zoogloea sp.) and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes as implants in repair of produced abdominal wall defects in rats. Acta Cir Bras. 2008;23:184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bellón JM, Contreras LA, Buján J. Carrea-San Martin A. Experimental assay of Dual Mesh® polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis (non-porous on one side) in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials. 1996;17:2367–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bellón JM. Role of the new lightweight prostheses in improving hernia repair. Cirugía Española. 2009;85:268–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Putra A, kakugo A, Furukawa H, Gong JP, Osada Y. Tubular bacterial cellulose gel with oriented fibrils on the curved surface. Polymer. 2008;49:1885–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bellon JM, Bujan J, Contrera L, Hernando A. Integration of biomaterials implanted into abdominal wall: process of scar formation and macrophage response. Biomaterials. 1995;16:381–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Lucena MT, de Melo MR, de Melo Lira MM, de Castro CM, Cavalcanti LA, de Menezes MA, Pinto FC, de Andrade Aguiar JL. Biocompatibility and cutaneous reactivity of cellulosic polysaccharide film in induced skin wounds in rats. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26:1–6. doi: 10.1007/s10856-015-5410-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rambo CR, Recouvreux DOS, Carminatti CA, Pitlovanciv AK, Antônio RV, Porto LM. Template assisted synthesis of porous nanofibrous cellulose membranes for tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 2007;28:549–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Filho Souza ZA, Greca FH, Noronha L, Maranhão ASA, Calil AP, Hubie DP, Barbosa FM. Abdominal wall healing in reoperated rats. Acta Cir Bras. 2007;22:147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yuki I, chiyama N, Murayama Y, Nien YL, Lee D, Ebara M, Ishii A, Chiang A, Vinters H, Nishimura I, Wu BM. Intravascular tissue reactions induced by various types of bioabsorbable polymeric materials: correlation between the degradation profiles and corresponding tissue reactions. Neuroradiology. 2010;52:1017–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fragoso AS, Silva MB, de Melo CP, Rodrigues CG, de Medeiros PL, Branco JF Jr, Andrade CA, Oliveira MD. Dielectric study of the adhesion of mesenchymal stem cells from human umbilical cord. on a sugarcane biopolymer. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014;25:229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, et al. Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia. 2001;5:142–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Klinge U, Si ZY, Zheng H, Schumpelick V, Bhardwaj RS, Klosterhalfen B. Abnormal collagen I to III distribution in the skin of patients with incisional hernia. Eur Surg Res. 2000;32:43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leblebici IM, Bozkurt S, Sever B. Comparison of adhesion-preventing meshes in a rat model of incisional hernia in terms of intra-abdominal adhesions and other complications. Biomed Res. 2014;25:414–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lima SV, de Oliveira Rangel AE, de Melo Lira MM, Pinto FC, Campos O, Sampaio FJ, de Andrade Aguiar JL. The biocompatibility of a cellulose exopolysaccharide implant in the rabbit bladder when compared with dextranomer microspheres plus hyaluronic acid. Urology. 2015;85:1520. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raquel Kelner Silveira
    • 1
  • Antônio Roberto Barros Coelho
    • 1
  • Flávia Cristina Morone Pinto
    • 2
  • Amanda Vasconcelos de Albuquerque
    • 2
  • Djalma Agripino de Melo Filho
    • 1
  • José Lamartine de Andrade Aguiar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Center for Health SciencesFederal University of Pernambuco, UFPERecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Center for Experimental Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for Health SciencesFederal University of Pernambuco, UFPERecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations