Article information
Abstract
The use of a prosthetic material to treat abdominal and/or thoracic disease has, to a great extent, resolved the problem created by the tissue defect itself and complications of recurrence. The most commonly used of these materials has been polypropylene in the form of a reticular mesh. This biomaterial, which boasts optimal biocompatibility, has been the object of constant modification aimed at better adapting it to the functional needs of the host tissue. Hence, the classic prostheses, nowadays known as heavyweights, are being gradually replaced by lighter materials with a simple spatial configuration and, more importantly, with a larger pore size (lightweight prostheses). Lightweight meshes are able to preserve abdominal wall compliance by generating less post-implant fibrosis and rigidity. However, further studies are still needed to achieve the ideal balance between material density and pore size. These two factors will determine the behaviour of these new prosthetic designs.
Keywords:
Polypropylene
Reticular prosthesis
Lightweight
Heavyweight
Resumen
El empleo de materiales protésicos para tratar enfermedades de la pared abdominal y/o torácica ha resuelto, en gran medida, el problema creado por el defecto tisular y las complicaciones de recidiva. Clásicamente, el más empleado ha sido el polipropileno en forma de prótesis reticular. Este material, con una biocompatibilidad óptima, está sufriendo modificaciones, encaminadas a conseguir la mejor adaptación posible al tejido receptor y mantener las mejores propiedades funcionales en el lugar del implante. De esta forma, las prótesis clásicas denominadas de alta densidad están siendo sustituidas por otras más ligeras (de baja densidad), con una configuración espacial sencilla y un poro más amplio. Las prótesis de baja densidad mantienen su elasticidad, lo que genera menos fibrosis y rigidez tras el implante. De cualquier forma, son necesarios estudios que consigan una densidad de material y un tamaño de poro ideales, dos parámetros que condicionan el comportamiento de dichos biomateriales.
Palabras clave:
Polipropileno
Prótesis reticulares
Prótesis de baja densidad
Prótesis de alta densidad
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
F.C. Usher.
Further observations the use of Marlex mesh: a new technique for the repair of inguinal hernias.
Am J Surg, 25 (1959), pp. 792-795
[2.]
F.C. Usher, J.E. Cogan, T. Lowry.
A new technique for the repair of inguinal and incisional hernias.
Arch Surg, 81 (1960), pp. 847-850
[3.]
I.M. Antonopoulos, W.C. Nhas, E. Mazzuchi, A.C. Piovesan, C. Birolini, A.M. Lucon.
Is polypropylene mesh safe and effective for reapiring infected incisional hernia in renal transplant recipients?.
Urology, 66 (2005), pp. 874-877
[4.]
D.I. Alaedeen, J. Lipman, D. Medalie, M.J. Rosen.
The singlestaged approach to the surgical management of abdominal wall hernias in contaminated fields.
Hernia, 11 (2007), pp. 41-45
[5.]
J.M. Bellón, A. García-Carranza, N. García-Honduvilla, A. Carrera- San Martín, J. Buján.
Tissue integration and biomechanical behaviour of contaminated experimental polyrpylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants.
Br J Surg, 91 (2004), pp. 489-494
[6.]
A. Jezupors, M. Mihelsons.
The analysis of infection after polypropylene mesh repair of abdominal wall hernia.
World J Surg, 30 (2006), pp. 2270-2278
[7.]
D.K. Chew, L.H. Choi, A.M. Rogers.
Enterocutaneous fistula 14 years after prosthetic mesh repair of a ventral incisional hernia. A life-long risk?.
Surgery, 125 (2000), pp. 109-111
[8.]
J.A. Chuback, R.S. Sigh, C. Sill, L.S. Dick.
Small bowel obstruction resulting from mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernia repair.
Surgery, 127 (2000), pp. 475-476
[9.]
M. Kapischke, K. Prinz, J. Tepel, J. Tensfeldt, T. Schulz.
Comparative investigation of alloplastic materials for hernia repair with improved methodology.
Surg Endosc, 19 (2005), pp. 1260-1265
[10.]
C.R. Costello, S.L. Bachman, S.A. Grant, D.S. Cleveland, T.S. Loy, B.J. Ramshaw.
Characterization of heavyweight and lightweight polypropylene prosthetic mesh explants from a single patient.
Surg Inn, 14 (2007), pp. 168-176
[11.]
V. Schumpelick, U. Klinge.
Prosthetic implants for hernia repair.
Br J Surg, 90 (2003), pp. 1457-1458
[12.]
W.S. Cobb, K.W. Kercher, B.T. Heniford.
The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair.
Surg Inn, 12 (2005), pp. 63-69
[13.]
D.B. Earle, L.A. MarK.
Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: How do I choose?.
Surg Clin N Am, 88 (2008), pp. 179-201
[14.]
U. Klinge, K. Junge, M. Stumpf, B. Klosterhalfen.
Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair.
J Biomed Mat Res, 63 (2002), pp. 129-136
[15.]
U. Klinge, B. Klosterhalfen, V. Birkenhauer, K. Junge, J. Conce, V. Shumpelick.
Impact of polymer pore size of the interface scar formation in a rat model.
J Surg Res, 103 (2002), pp. 208-214
[16.]
R. Rosch, K. Junge, R. Quester, U. Klinge, B. Klosterhalfen, V. Schumpelick.
Vypro II mesh in hernia repair: impact of polyglactin on long-term incorporation in rats.
Eur Surg Res, 35 (2003), pp. 445-450
[17.]
K. Junge, R. Rosch, J. Krones, U. Klinge, P.R. Martens, P. Lynen, et al.
Influence of polyglecaprone 25 (Monocryl) supplementation on the biocompatibility of a polypropylene mesh for hernia repair.
Hernia, 9 (2005), pp. 212-217
[18.]
A. Schachtrupp, U. Klinge, K. Junge, R. Rosch, R.S. Bhardwaj, V. Schumpelick.
Individual inflammatory response of human blood monocyte to mesh biomaterials.
Br J Surg, 90 (2003), pp. 114-120
[19.]
W.S. Cobb, J.M. Burns, K.W. Kercher, B.D. Mattews, H.J. Norton, B.T. Heniford.
Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults.
J Surg Res, 129 (2005), pp. 231-235
[20.]
C. Song, A. Alijani, T. Frank, G. Hanna, A. Cuschieri.
Mechanical properties of the human abdominal wall measured in vivo during insufflation for laparoscopic surgery.
Surg Endosc, 20 (2006), pp. 987-990
[21.]
K. Junge, U. Klinge, A. Prescher, P. Giboni, M. Niewiera, V. Shumpelick.
Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernia using mesh implants.
Hernia, 5 (2001), pp. 113-118
[22.]
U. Klinge, B. Klosterhalfen, J. Conze, W. Limberg, B. Obolenski, A.P. Ottinger, et al.
Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall.
Eur J Surg, 164 (1998), pp. 951-960
[23.]
F.H. Greca, J.B. de Paula, M.L.P. Biondo-Simöes, F.D. da Costa, A.P.G. da Silva, S. Time, et al.
The influence of differing pore sizes on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects Experimental study in dogs.
Hernia, 5 (2001), pp. 59-64
[24.]
U. Klinge.
Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not less biological response.
World J Surg, 31 (2007), pp. 867-868
[25.]
D. Weyhe, I. Schmitz, O. Belyaev, R. Grabs, K.M. Muller, W. Uhl, et al.
Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polyrpoylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response.
World J Surg, 30 (2006), pp. 1586-1591
[26.]
J.M. Bellón, M. Rodríguez, N. García-Honduvilla, G. Pascual, J. Buján.
Partially absorbable meshes for hernia repair offer advantages over nonabsorbable meshes.
Am J Surg, 194 (2007), pp. 68-74
[27.]
G. Pascual, M. Rodríguez, V. Gómez-Gil, N. García-Honduvilla, J. Buján, J.M. Bellón.
Early tissue incorporation and collagen deposition in lightweight polypropylene meshes: bioassay in an experimental model of ventral hernia.
Surgery, 144 (2008), pp. 427-435
[28.]
S. Schmidbauer, R. Ladumer, K.K. Hallfeldt, T. Mussack.
Heavyweight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia.
Eur J Med Res, 10 (2005), pp. 247-253
[29.]
P.J. O’Dwyer, A.N. Kingsnorth, R.G. Molloy, P.K. Small, B. Lammers, G. Horeysecks.
Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair.
Br J Surg, 92 (2005), pp. 166-170
[30.]
J. Conze, A.N. Kingsnorth, J.B. Flament, R. Simmermacher, G. Arlt, C. Langer, et al.
Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair.
Br J Surg, 92 (2005), pp. 1488-1493
[31.]
D. Akolekar, S. Kumar, L.R. Khan, A.C. de Beaux, S.J. Nixon.
Comparison of recurrence with lightweight composite polypropylene mesh and heavyweight mesh in laparoscopy totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an audit of 1232 repairs.
Hernia, 12 (2008), pp. 39-43
[32.]
M. Binnebösel, R. Rosch, K. Junge, T.C. Flanagan, R. Schwab, V. Schumpelick, et al.
Biomechanical analyses of overlap and mesh dislocation in an incisional hernia model in vitro.
Surgery, 142 (2007), pp. 365-371
[33.]
G. Welty, U. Klinge, B. Klosterhalfen, R. Kasperk, V. Schumpelick.
Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes.
Hernia, 5 (2001), pp. 142-147
[34.]
R.G. Holzheimer.
First results of Lichtenstein hernia repair with Ultrapro-mesh as cost saving procedure— quality control combined with a modified quality of life questionnaire (SF-36) in a series of ambulatory operated patients.
Eur J Med Res, 9 (2004), pp. 323-327
[35.]
S. Post, B. Weiss, M. Willer, T. Neufang, D. Lorenz.
Randomized clinical trial of lightweight composite mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.
Br J Surg, 91 (2004), pp. 44-48
[36.]
C. Tamme, N. Garde, A. Klinger, C. Hampe, R. Wunder, F. Kökerling.
Totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty with titanium-coated lightweight polypropylene mesh: early results.
Surg Endosc, 19 (2005), pp. 1125-1129
[37.]
S. Bringman, S. Wollert, J. Osterberg, S. Smedberg, H. Granlund, T.J. Heikkinen.
Three-year results of a randomized clinical trial of lightweight or standard polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal hernia.
Br J Surg, 93 (2006), pp. 1056-1059
[38.]
A. Koch, S. Bringman, P. Myrelid, S. Smeds, A. Kald.
Randomized clinical trial of groin hernia repair with titanium-coated lightweight mesh compared with standard polypropylene mesh.
Br J Surg, 95 (2008), pp. 1226-1231
[39.]
U. Klinge, J. Conze, W. Limberg, C. Bruecker, A.P. Ottinger, V. Schumpelick.
Pathophysiology of the abdominal wall.
Chirurg, 67 (1996), pp. 229-233
Copyright © 2009. Asociación Española de Cirujanos
