title: Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of fenestrated and nonfenestrated biologic mesh in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The purpose of this study was to compare tissue incorporation and adhesion characteristics of a novel fenestrated versus nonfenestrated crosslinked porcine dermal matrix (CPDM) (Bard CollaMend) in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair.
  
  
  METHODS
  Bilateral abdominal wall defects were created in 24 Yucatan minipigs, resulting in 48 defects, which were allowed to mature for 21 days. Twelve defects were repaired with fenestrated CPDM using a preperitoneal technique, 12 with fenestrated CPDM using an intraperitoneal technique, 12 with nonfenestrated CPDM using a preperitoneal technique, and 12 with nonfenestrated CPDM using an intraperitoneal technique. Half of the animals in the intraperitoneal group were euthanized after 1 month, and the other half after 3 months. Similarly, half of the animals in the preperitoneal group were euthanized after 1 month, and the other half after 6 months. Biomechanical testing and histologic evaluation were performed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Intraperitoneal placement of the CPDM products resulted in significantly greater adhesed area compared with preperitoneal placement (p < 0.05). Tissue ingrowth into preperitoneal fenestrated and nonfenestrated CPDM resulted in significantly greater incorporation strengths after 6 months compared with 1 month (p = 0.03 and p < 0.0001). Histologic analysis showed significantly greater cellular infiltration, extracellular matrix deposition, and neovascularization, with less fibrous encapsulation through the center of the fenestrations compared with all other sites evaluated, including nonfenestrated grafts.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Histologic findings revealed increased tissue incorporation at fenestration sites compared with nonfenestrated grafts regardless of implant location or time in vivo. However, preperitoneal placement resulted in greater incorporation strength, less adhesed area, and lower adhesion scores compared with intraperitoneal placement for both fenestrated and nonfenestrated CPDM.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.
authors.forename: Eric D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Jenkins
authors.forename: Lora
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Melman
authors.forename: Corey R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Deeken
authors.forename: Suellen C
authors.initials: SC
authors.lastname: Greco
authors.forename: Margaret M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Frisella
authors.forename: Brent D
authors.initials: BD
authors.lastname: Matthews
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D006555:Hernia, Ventral / Q000473:pathology* / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D013552:Swine; D013556:Swine, Miniature; D000267:Tissue Adhesions / Q000473:pathology*