Ozog Yves, Konstantinovic Maja L, Verschueren Sofie, Spelzini Federico, De Ridder Dirk, Deprest Jan
Center for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Apr;20(4):435-41. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0793-6. Epub 2009 Jan 13.
To assess the biomechanical properties of full-thickness abdominal wall defects, either using Native tissues, with or without Overlay, and by substitution of the Defect by small intestinal submucosa mesh.
Seventy-two rats were divided into three groups according to repair method (Native, Overlay or Defect). At 7, 14, 30, and 90 days, six rats were sacrificed to measure tensile strength, collagen ingrowth, and host response.
Explants had comparable strength at 30 days, the majority rupturing at the interface. Afterwards, the Native group was more resistant than both small intestine submucosa (SIS) groups with a more organized fibrotic scar on histology at 90 days.
SIS augmentation of native tissue repair does not increase strength. Replacement of abdominal wall by SIS is equally strong when compared to the SIS-augmented group; however, materials preferably rupture at the site of the implant itself.
