title: Postimplantation host tissue response and biodegradation of biologic versus polymer meshes implanted in an intraperitoneal position.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This study compared the in vitro and in vivo behaviors at the peritoneal interface of a new polymer material (Bio-A) and of two biologic non-cross-linked materials (Tutomesh [Tuto] and Strattice [St]), all biodegradable.
  
  
  METHODS
  Omentum mesothelial cells from rabbits were seeded onto the three prosthetic materials tested. At 1, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h after implantation, mesothelial cover was performed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). In the in vivo study, 3 × 3 cm mesh fragments were placed on the parietal peritoneum of the same rabbits and fixed at the four corners with individual stitches. The implants were randomized such that six fragments of each material were implanted in nine animals (2 per animal). Adhesion formation was quantified by sequential laparoscopy and image analysis 3, 7, and 14 days after implantation. The animals were killed at 90 days, and the meshes were subjected to microscopy and immunohistochemistry.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The in vitro mesothelial cover was significantly greater for St than for Bio-A at each time point. The percentage of cover for St was also higher than for Tuto 16 and 24 h after seeding and higher for Tuto than for Bio-A at all time points. Compared with the biologic meshes, significantly higher adhesion percentages were recorded for Bio-A. At 90 days after implantation, differences in absorption measured as percentage of reduction in mesh thickness were detected among all the meshes. The least absorbed was St. The neoperitoneum thickness was significantly greater for the biologic meshes than for the polymer mesh, although this variable also differed significantly between St and Tuto. Macrophage counts were higher for Bio-A than for the biologic meshes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Greater mesothelial cover was observed in vitro for St. In vivo, adhesion formation and the macrophage response induced by Bio-A were greater than those elicited by the biologic materials. Bio-A and Tuto showed substantial biodegradation compared with St.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Specialties, Networking Research Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Faculty of Medicine, Alcalá University, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Pascual
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Pérez-Köhler
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Rodríguez
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sotomayor
authors.forename: Juan M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Bellón
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D004848:Epithelium / Q000648:ultrastructure; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D010537:Peritoneum / Q000601:surgery* / Q000648:ultrastructure; D011108:Polymers; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D011817:Rabbits; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D000267:Tissue Adhesions / Q000473:pathology / Q000517:prevention & control; D058106:Wound Closure Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014945:Wound Healing
chemical_list: D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D011108:Polymers
references.citation: J Surg Educ. 2011 Jan-Feb;68(1):62-6
references.pmid: 21292218
references.citation: Hernia. 2005 Mar;9(1):103-4
references.pmid: 15616763
references.citation: Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009 Mar;24(3):323-5
references.pmid: 18987867
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Apr;198(4):543-8
references.pmid: 15051006
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2012 Jan;26(1):27-35
references.pmid: 21789645
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2000 Mar;190(3):271-80
references.pmid: 10703851
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2011 May;25(5):1693-4
references.pmid: 20730448
references.citation: World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Apr 21;16(15):1928-33
references.pmid: 20397274
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2004 Aug;25(17):3541-52
references.pmid: 15020128
references.citation: J Surg Res. 2013 Apr;180(2):274-83
references.pmid: 23481559
references.citation: J Surg Res. 2013 May 1;181(1):160-9
references.pmid: 22687881
references.citation: Hernia. 2011 Apr;15(2):181-4
references.pmid: 21181217
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2010 Apr;24(4):805-11
references.pmid: 19697086
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2012 Oct;26(10):2767-78
references.pmid: 22538685
references.citation: Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Feb;53(2):219-23
references.pmid: 20087098
references.citation: J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003 Apr;14(4):359-64
references.pmid: 15348460
references.citation: Hernia. 2012 Feb;16(1):121-2
references.pmid: 22042382
references.citation: J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2000 Jan;11(1):25-9
references.pmid: 15348095
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e52628
references.pmid: 23285119
references.citation: J Surg Res. 2003 Oct;114(2):126-32
references.pmid: 14559437
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2001 Jun;22(11):1415-24
references.pmid: 11336316
references.citation: Biomaterials. 1996 Jul;17(14):1369-72
references.pmid: 8830961
references.citation: World J Surg. 2001 Feb;25(2):147-52
references.pmid: 11338014
references.citation: J Surg Res. 2010 Jun 15;161(2):264-71
references.pmid: 19782377
references.citation: Hernia. 2012 Feb;16(1):77-89
references.pmid: 21805341