ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the histologic response to fibrin sealant (FS) as an alternative fixation method for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.
One non-absorbable barrier mesh (Composix™) and three absorbable barrier meshes (Sepramesh™, Proceed™, and Parietex™ Composite) were used for the study, with uncoated macroporous polypropylene mesh (ProLite Ultra™) as the control. Three methods of fixation were used: #0-polypropylene suture + FS (ARTISS™, Baxter Healthcare Corp.), FS alone (ARTISS™), or tacks alone (n = 10 for each group). Two pieces of mesh (of dimensions 4 × 4-cm) were secured intraperitoneally in 75 New Zealand white rabbits. After 8 weeks, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained specimens were evaluated for host tissue response. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was determined using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test.
Composix™ with FS only showed significantly greater cellular infiltration than with suture + FS (P = 0.0007), Proceed™ with FS only had significantly greater neovascularization than with suture + FS (P = 0.0172), and ProLite Ultra™ with suture + FS had significantly greater neovascularization than with tacks only (P = 0.046). Differences due to mesh type showed that Composix™ exhibited less extensive cellular infiltration (P ≤ 0.0032), extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, and neovascularization, and demonstrated less inflammatory cells and more fibroblasts compared to the other meshes (P < 0.05).
FS did not have a significant histologic effect compared to tacks when utilized for the fixation of mesh to the peritoneum of New Zealand White rabbits. However, the mesh type did have a significant histologic effect. The permanent barrier mesh (Composix™) was associated with less histologic incorporation than absorbable barrier and macroporous meshes, as evidenced by lower levels of cellular infiltration, ECM deposition, and neovascularization, independent of the fixation method used.
Hernia 05/2011; 15(6):677-84. · 1.84 Impact Factor