Shahan Charles P, Stoikes Nathaniel N, Roan Esra, Tatum James, Webb David L, Voeller Guy R
Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 910 Madison Ave, Suite 223, Second Floor, Memphis, TN, 38163, USA.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Memphis, 330 Engineering Tech Bldg., Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar;31(3):1350-1353. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5119-z. Epub 2016 Jul 21.
Non-penetrating mesh fixation is becoming widely accepted even though little is known about the short-term fixation strength of these techniques. Although clinical outcomes are the ultimate measure of effectiveness, ex vivo biomechanical evaluation provides insights about the load-carrying capacity of the mesh-tissue complex in vivo. As such, the purpose of this study was to compare the short-term fixation strength of three unique non-penetrating methods of fixation: LifeMesh™, ProGrip™, and Tisseel™. Among these, LifeMesh™ is a novel technology where large-pore, mid-weight polypropylene mesh is embedded in a dry matrix of porcine gelatin and microbial transglutaminase enzyme, providing self-fixation without the need for a separate adhesive application.
Seven mongrel swine underwent implantation of two 4 × 7 cm pieces of either LifeMesh™, ProGrip™, or polypropylene mesh fixated with 2 mL of Tisseel™; 10 min after application, the samples were excised with the abdominal wall and stored for immediate biomechanical testing. The samples underwent lap shear testing to determine the short-term fixation strength of these three technologies.
ProGrip™ demonstrated mean fixation strength of 1.3 N/cm (±STE 0.2). Mean fixation for mesh fixated with Tisseel™ was 2.6 N/cm (±STE 0.5). LifeMesh™ samples had mean fixation strength of 8.0 N/cm (±STE 2.1). Analysis of variance testing showed that interfacial strength of LifeMesh™ was significantly greater than that of either ProGrip™ or Tisseel™. ProGrip™ and Tisseel™ were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.06).
Short-term strength of mesh fixation is an undescribed factor in hernia repair, but could have significant implications for early recurrence and mesh contraction. While further investigation is needed to define adequate interfacial strength, this comparison of non-penetrating mesh fixation methods shows that the novel LifeMesh™ technology exhibits greater strength than other non-penetrating fixation techniques.
尽管对这些非穿透性网片固定技术的短期固定强度了解甚少,但非穿透性网片固定正被广泛接受。虽然临床结果是有效性的最终衡量标准,但体外生物力学评估能提供关于体内网片-组织复合体承载能力的见解。因此,本研究的目的是比较三种独特的非穿透性固定方法的短期固定强度:LifeMesh™、ProGrip™和Tisseel™。其中,LifeMesh™是一项新技术,大孔、中等重量的聚丙烯网片嵌入猪明胶和微生物转谷氨酰胺酶的干燥基质中,无需单独应用粘合剂即可实现自我固定。
七只杂种猪植入两片4×7 cm的LifeMesh™、ProGrip™或用2 mL Tisseel™固定的聚丙烯网片;应用10分钟后,将样本与腹壁一起切除并储存,以便立即进行生物力学测试。对样本进行搭接剪切测试,以确定这三种技术的短期固定强度。
ProGrip™的平均固定强度为1.3 N/cm(±标准误0.2)。用Tisseel™固定的网片平均固定强度为2.6 N/cm(±标准误0.5)。LifeMesh™样本的平均固定强度为8.0 N/cm(±标准误2.1)。方差分析表明,LifeMesh™的界面强度显著高于ProGrip™或Tisseel™。ProGrip™和Tisseel™之间无显著差异(p = 0.06)。
网片固定的短期强度是疝修补中一个未被描述的因素,但可能对早期复发和网片收缩有重大影响。虽然需要进一步研究来确定足够的界面强度,但这种非穿透性网片固定方法的比较表明,新型LifeMesh™技术比其他非穿透性固定技术具有更高的强度。