Resistance to adhesion formation

A comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity

R. Gonzalez, G. T. Rodeheaver, D. L. Moody, P. A. Foresman, Bruce Ramshaw

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: New materials have been devised to prevent postoperative adhesions when placing a prosthesis in contact with abdominal contents. Methods: Eighty rats underwent laparotomy and denudation of the serosa of the cecum and peritoneal covering of the abdominal wall. Five treated mesh products (Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, Sepramesh, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh) and one untreated mesh product (untreated Parietene) were randomly placed between the cecum and abdominal wall. A group without mesh was used as control. The animals were sacrificed at 21 days following surgery and analyzed for the presence of adhesions. Results: The incidence of adhesion formation, mean adhesion area, maximum adhesion length, and strength of adhesion separation were similar between Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, and Bard Composix E/X, and they were significantly less than with Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group. Gore-Tex Dual Mesh resulted in less adhesions, adhesion area, mean strength of separation, and work of separation than the untreated Parietene group and the control group. Sepramesh resulted in less strength and work of separation compared to the control group. Conclusions: The incidence of adhesions and work and strength of adhesion separation are reduced when using a treated mesh, compared to the untreated mesh and the control group without mesh. Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh were superior to Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group in the prevention of adhesion formation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)213-219
Number of pages7
JournalHernia
Volume8
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004

Fingerprint

Abdominal Cavity
Control Groups
Cecum
Abdominal Wall
Serous Membrane
Incidence
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
Laparotomy
Prostheses and Implants
sepramesh
parietex

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Resistance to adhesion formation : A comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity. / Gonzalez, R.; Rodeheaver, G. T.; Moody, D. L.; Foresman, P. A.; Ramshaw, Bruce.

In: Hernia, Vol. 8, No. 3, 01.01.2004, p. 213-219.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gonzalez, R. ; Rodeheaver, G. T. ; Moody, D. L. ; Foresman, P. A. ; Ramshaw, Bruce. / Resistance to adhesion formation : A comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity. In: Hernia. 2004 ; Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 213-219.
@article{1d68997a1d5f43e78a7eaeeaad8ce9d9,
title = "Resistance to adhesion formation: A comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity",
abstract = "Background: New materials have been devised to prevent postoperative adhesions when placing a prosthesis in contact with abdominal contents. Methods: Eighty rats underwent laparotomy and denudation of the serosa of the cecum and peritoneal covering of the abdominal wall. Five treated mesh products (Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, Sepramesh, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh) and one untreated mesh product (untreated Parietene) were randomly placed between the cecum and abdominal wall. A group without mesh was used as control. The animals were sacrificed at 21 days following surgery and analyzed for the presence of adhesions. Results: The incidence of adhesion formation, mean adhesion area, maximum adhesion length, and strength of adhesion separation were similar between Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, and Bard Composix E/X, and they were significantly less than with Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group. Gore-Tex Dual Mesh resulted in less adhesions, adhesion area, mean strength of separation, and work of separation than the untreated Parietene group and the control group. Sepramesh resulted in less strength and work of separation compared to the control group. Conclusions: The incidence of adhesions and work and strength of adhesion separation are reduced when using a treated mesh, compared to the untreated mesh and the control group without mesh. Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh were superior to Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group in the prevention of adhesion formation.",
author = "R. Gonzalez and Rodeheaver, {G. T.} and Moody, {D. L.} and Foresman, {P. A.} and Bruce Ramshaw",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10029-004-0213-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "213--219",
journal = "Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery",
issn = "1265-4906",
publisher = "Springer Paris",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resistance to adhesion formation

T2 - A comparative study of treated and untreated mesh products placed in the abdominal cavity

AU - Gonzalez, R.

AU - Rodeheaver, G. T.

AU - Moody, D. L.

AU - Foresman, P. A.

AU - Ramshaw, Bruce

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Background: New materials have been devised to prevent postoperative adhesions when placing a prosthesis in contact with abdominal contents. Methods: Eighty rats underwent laparotomy and denudation of the serosa of the cecum and peritoneal covering of the abdominal wall. Five treated mesh products (Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, Sepramesh, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh) and one untreated mesh product (untreated Parietene) were randomly placed between the cecum and abdominal wall. A group without mesh was used as control. The animals were sacrificed at 21 days following surgery and analyzed for the presence of adhesions. Results: The incidence of adhesion formation, mean adhesion area, maximum adhesion length, and strength of adhesion separation were similar between Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, and Bard Composix E/X, and they were significantly less than with Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group. Gore-Tex Dual Mesh resulted in less adhesions, adhesion area, mean strength of separation, and work of separation than the untreated Parietene group and the control group. Sepramesh resulted in less strength and work of separation compared to the control group. Conclusions: The incidence of adhesions and work and strength of adhesion separation are reduced when using a treated mesh, compared to the untreated mesh and the control group without mesh. Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh were superior to Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group in the prevention of adhesion formation.

AB - Background: New materials have been devised to prevent postoperative adhesions when placing a prosthesis in contact with abdominal contents. Methods: Eighty rats underwent laparotomy and denudation of the serosa of the cecum and peritoneal covering of the abdominal wall. Five treated mesh products (Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, Sepramesh, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh) and one untreated mesh product (untreated Parietene) were randomly placed between the cecum and abdominal wall. A group without mesh was used as control. The animals were sacrificed at 21 days following surgery and analyzed for the presence of adhesions. Results: The incidence of adhesion formation, mean adhesion area, maximum adhesion length, and strength of adhesion separation were similar between Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, and Bard Composix E/X, and they were significantly less than with Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group. Gore-Tex Dual Mesh resulted in less adhesions, adhesion area, mean strength of separation, and work of separation than the untreated Parietene group and the control group. Sepramesh resulted in less strength and work of separation compared to the control group. Conclusions: The incidence of adhesions and work and strength of adhesion separation are reduced when using a treated mesh, compared to the untreated mesh and the control group without mesh. Parietex Composite, Parietene Composite, Bard Composix E/X, and Gore-Tex Dual Mesh were superior to Sepramesh, untreated Parietene, and the control group in the prevention of adhesion formation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4444358883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4444358883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10029-004-0213-x

DO - 10.1007/s10029-004-0213-x

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 213

EP - 219

JO - Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery

JF - Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery

SN - 1265-4906

IS - 3

ER -