Postimplant Behavior of Lightweight Polypropylene Meshes in an Experimental Model of Abdominal Hernia

REFERENCES

• Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U. The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2005; 2: 103–117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb W S, Burns J M, Peindl R D, et al. Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 2006; 136: 1–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinge U. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 2007; 31: 867–868
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, et al. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 2002; 103: 208–214
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Dwyer P J, Kingsnorth A N, Mohillo R G, et al. Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 166–170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conze J, Kignsorth A N, Flament J B, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 1488–1493
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schmidbauer S, Ladurner R, Kallfeldt K K, et al. Heavy-weight low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. Eur J Med Res 2005; 10: 247–253
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bellón J M, Contreras L A, Buján J, et al. Effect of phosphatidylcholine on the process of peritoneal adhesion following implantation of a polypropylene mesh prosthesis. Biomaterials 1996; 17: 1369–1372
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pans A, Pierard G E. A comparison of intraperitoneal prostheses for the repair of abdominal muscular wall defects in rats. Eur Surg Res 1992; 24: 54–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker A P, Henderson J, Condon R E. Double-layer prostheses for repair of abdominal wall defects in a rabbit model. J Surg Res 1993; 55: 32–37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bellón J M, Buján J, Contreras L A, et al. Similarity in behavior of polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) prostheses implanted into different interfaces. J Biomed Mat Res 1996; 31: 1–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellón J M, Jurado F, García-Honduvilla N, et al. The structure of a biomaterial rather than its chemical composition modulates the repair process at the peritoneal level. Am J Surg 2002; 14: 154–159
   Google Scholar
• Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, et al. Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia 2001; 5: 142–147
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, et al. Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 2002; 63: 129–136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb W S, Kercher K W, Heniford B T. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 2005; 12: 63–69
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weyhe D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O, et al. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 2006; 30: 1586–1591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinge U, Schumpelick V, Klosterhalfen B. Functional assessment and tissue response of short and long-term absorbable surgical meshes. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 1415–1424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellón J M, Rodríguez M, García-Honduvilla N, et al. Partially absorbable meshes for hernia repair offer advantages over nonabsorbable meshes. Am J Surg 2007; 194: 68–74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schug-Pab C, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, et al. A lightweight polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) for laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall hernias. Comparison of biocompatibility with the DualMesh in an experimental study using the porcine model. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 402–409
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, et al. Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: An experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 1998; 164: 965–969
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• García-Ureña M A, Vega V, Diaz A, et al. Differences in polypropylene shrinkage depending on mesh position in an experimental study. Am J Surg 2007; 193: 538–542
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Junge K, Klinge U, Prescher A, et al. Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernia using mesh implants. Hernia 2001; 5: 113–118
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coob W S, Burns J M, Kercher K W, et al. Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults. J Surg Res 2005; 129: 231–235
   PubMedGoogle Scholar