Advertisement

Biologic Mesh: Classification and Evidence-Based Critical Appraisal

  • Corey R. DeekenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Numerous biologic meshes exist for soft tissue repair applications such as hernia repair/abdominal wall reconstruction. These materials can be classified based on the species and type of tissue from which they are derived, as well as the processing that the tissue undergoes. The impact of these variables on the mechanical properties and remodeling characteristics of biologic meshes are not well understood. Recent studies have documented the baseline physical, mechanical, and thermal properties of several biologic meshes, along with in vitro studies of the impact of repetitive loading and enzyme exposure on baseline mechanical properties. Porcine models have also described the mechanical strength and host tissue response of several biologic meshes in an in vivo setting. Additionally, a recent clinical trial has documented the remodeling characteristics of several types of biologic meshes after implantation in human subjects. The results of these studies have consistently shown that the effects of crosslinking are species/tissue dependent or related to the specific chemical compounds utilized to achieve crosslinking and the number of additional bonds ultimately introduced into these tissues. Additionally, differences have been observed between non-crosslinked materials, suggesting that widespread generalizations should not be made even amongst non-crosslinked materials. Differences due to species, tissue type, and other processing conditions such as decellularization and sterilization are likely as influential as the presence or absence of intentional crosslinking and should be explored further in future studies.

Keywords

Biologic mesh Collagenase Decellularization Enzymatic degradation Extracellular matrix Hernia repair Porcine model Remodeling Repetitive loading Tensile strength 

References

  1. 1.
    Cornwell KG, Landsman A, James KS. Extracellular matrix biomaterials for soft tissue repair. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2009;26:507–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Badylak SF. Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Transpl Immunol. 2004;12:367–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badylak SF. The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3587–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badylak SF. Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;42:1517–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E. Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:373–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook JL, Fox DB, Kuroki K, Jayo M, De Deyne PG. In vitro and in vivo comparison of five biomaterials used for orthopedic soft tissue augmentation. Am J Vet Res. 2008;69:148–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenkins ED, Yip M, Melman L, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Informed consent: cultural and religious issues associated with the use of allogeneic and xenogeneic mesh products. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:402–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyer SR, Chiu B, Churchill TA, Zhu L, Lakey JR, Ross DB. Comparison of aortic valve allograft decellularization techniques in the rat. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2006;79:254–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lynch AP, Ahearne M. Strategies for developing decellularized corneal scaffolds. Exp Eye Res. 2013;108:42–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horowitz B, Bonomo R, Prince AM, Chin SN, Brotman B, Shulman RW. Solvent/detergent-treated plasma: a virus-inactivated substitute for fresh frozen plasma. Blood. 1992;79:826–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cartmell JS, Dunn MG. Effect of chemical treatments on tendon cellularity and mechanical properties. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;49:134–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woods T, Gratzer PF. Effectiveness of three extraction techniques in the development of a decellularized bone-anterior cruciate ligament-bone graft. Biomaterials. 2005;26:7339–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deeken CR, White AK, Bachman SL, Ramshaw BJ, Cleveland DS, Loy TS, et al. Method of preparing a decellularized porcine tendon using tributyl phosphate. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2011;96:199–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gillies AR, Smith LR, Lieber RL, Varghese S. Method for decellularizing skeletal muscle without detergents or proteolytic enzymes. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2011;17:383–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gratzer PF, Harrison RD, Woods T. Matrix alteration and not residual sodium dodecyl sulfate cytotoxicity affects the cellular repopulation of a decellularized matrix. Tissue Eng. 2006;12:2975–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang AY, Bates SJ, Morrow E, Pham H, Pham B, Chang J. Tissue-engineered intrasynovial tendons: optimization of acellularization and seeding. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:489–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rieder E, Kasimir MT, Silberhumer G, Seebacher G, Wolner E, Simon P, et al. Decellularization protocols of porcine heart valves differ importantly in efficiency of cell removal and susceptibility of the matrix to recellularization with human vascular cells. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:399–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Damink LHHO, Dijkstra PJ, vanLuyn MJA, vanWachem PB, Nieuwenhuis P, Feijen J. Cross-linking of dermal sheep collagen using a water-soluble carbodiimide. Biomaterials. 1996;17:765–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abraham GA, Murray J, Billiar K, Sullivan SJ. Evaluation of the porcine intestinal collagen layer as a biomaterial. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51:442–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Billiar K, Murray J, Laude D, Abraham G, Bachrach N. Effects of carbodiimide crosslinking conditions on the physical properties of laminated intestinal submucosa. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;56:101–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olde Damink LH, Dijkstra PJ, van Luyn MJ, van Wachem PB, Nieuwenhuis P, Feijen J. In vitro degradation of dermal sheep collagen cross-linked using a water-soluble carbodiimide. Biomaterials. 1996;17:679–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khor E. Methods for the treatment of collagenous tissues for bioprostheses. Biomaterials. 1997;18:95–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Courtman DW, Errett BF, Wilson GJ. The role of crosslinking in modification of the immune response elicited against xenogenic vascular acellular matrices. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;55:576–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    HardinYoung J, Carr RM, Downing GJ, Condon KD, Termin PL. Modification of native collagen reduces antigenicity but preserves cell compatibility. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1996;49:675–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gratzer PF, Lee JM. Control of pH alters the type of cross-linking produced by 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-carbodiimide (EDC) treatment of acellular matrix vascular grafts. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58:172–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deeken CR, Eliason BJ, Pichert MD, Grant SA, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Differentiation of biologic scaffold materials through physiomechanical, thermal, and enzymatic degradation techniques. Ann Surg. 2012;255:595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pui CL, Tang ME, Annor AH, Ebersole GC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD, et al. Effect of repetitive loading on the mechanical properties of biological scaffold materials. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:216–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Annor AH, Tang ME, Pui CL, Ebersole GC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD, et al. Effect of enzymatic degradation on the mechanical properties of biological scaffold materials. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2767–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deeken CR, Melman L, Jenkins ED, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:880–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jenkins ED, Melman L, Deeken CR, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of fenestrated and nonfenestrated biologic mesh in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:327–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cavallo JA, Greco SC, Liu J, Frisella MM, Deeken CR, Matthews BD. Remodeling characteristics and biomechanical properties of a crosslinked versus a non-crosslinked porcine dermis scaffolds in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2013;19(2):207–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cavallo JA, Roma AA, Jasielec MS, Ousley J, Creamer J, Pichert MD, et al. Remodeling characteristics and collagen distribution in biological scaffold materials explanted from human subjects after abdominal soft tissue reconstruction: an analysis of scaffold remodeling characteristics by patient risk factors and surgical site classifications. Ann Surg. 2013.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Silva GS, Krpata DM, Gao Y, Criss CN, Anderson JM, Soltanian HT, et al. Lack of identifiable biologic behavior in a series of porcine mesh explants. Surgery. 2014;156:183–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Covalent BioLLCEurekaUSA

Personalised recommendations