Scholarlink

Abstract <p><b>Objective:</b> Nowadays, the primacy in elective surgery belongs to the problem of hernias. According to the literature worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo surgical treatment for hernia of the anterior abdominal wall every year, most of whom undergo alloplasty using various kinds of endoprostheses Only single works are devoted to the study how the methods for implant fixing and the emerging local inflammatory response of tissues affect the frequency of relapses after allognioplasty. The aim of this study was to investigate experimentally the characteristics of the connective tissues response when implanting a rigid monofilament mesh polypropylene PP (implant) with a shape memory effect, and a classic mesh endoprosthesis made of PP monofilament with various methods of fixing implants. <b>Material and methods:</b> The experimental study on 60 white males of Wistar rats was performed to identify tissue reaction around the PP mesh. Group 1 animals (<i>n</i> = 30) were implanted with a rigid mesh monofilament PP implant (Herniamesh, Italy) with shape memory effect, group 2 animals (<i>n</i> = 30)—with a classic mesh endoprosthesis made of PP monofilament for soft tissue repair ESFIL® standard (Lintex, Russia). Biopsies were examined at 1, 2, 3 months after implantation of the PP mesh. <b>Results and discussion:</b> The morphological study showed that 1 month after the implantation of the rigid mesh monofilament PP implant, the inflammatory reaction was less obvious than when implanting a classical PP endoprosthesis. This reaction contributed to the earlier sprouting of collagen fivers around the rigid implant monofilaments. At 2 and 3 months after the implantation of PP mesh in both groups of animals, there were no advantages in the regenerate formed. <b>Conclusions:</b> Introduction of PP mesh with suture fixation and rigid monofilament PP mesh without fixation induces the natural response to the integration of the endoprosthesis, which is characterized by aseptic inflammation followed by pronounced fibrosis around the implant. Such processes, occurring in response to the implantation of synthetic polypropylene mesh, increase local mechanical tissue resistance, and can create additional strength against recurrence of inguinal hernias.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Morphological Analysis of Connective Tissue Response to Implantation of Polypropylene Endoprosthesis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月10日

查看全文
  • Kh. A. Abduvosidov,
  • V. G. Shestakova,
  • A. M. Perevedentseva,
  • I. A. Chekmareva,
  • S. M. Chudnykh,
  • L. M. Baranchugova,
  • A. G. Alekseev,
  • M. M. Kokoev

摘要

Abstract

Objective: Nowadays, the primacy in elective surgery belongs to the problem of hernias. According to the literature worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo surgical treatment for hernia of the anterior abdominal wall every year, most of whom undergo alloplasty using various kinds of endoprostheses Only single works are devoted to the study how the methods for implant fixing and the emerging local inflammatory response of tissues affect the frequency of relapses after allognioplasty. The aim of this study was to investigate experimentally the characteristics of the connective tissues response when implanting a rigid monofilament mesh polypropylene PP (implant) with a shape memory effect, and a classic mesh endoprosthesis made of PP monofilament with various methods of fixing implants. Material and methods: The experimental study on 60 white males of Wistar rats was performed to identify tissue reaction around the PP mesh. Group 1 animals (n = 30) were implanted with a rigid mesh monofilament PP implant (Herniamesh, Italy) with shape memory effect, group 2 animals (n = 30)—with a classic mesh endoprosthesis made of PP monofilament for soft tissue repair ESFIL® standard (Lintex, Russia). Biopsies were examined at 1, 2, 3 months after implantation of the PP mesh. Results and discussion: The morphological study showed that 1 month after the implantation of the rigid mesh monofilament PP implant, the inflammatory reaction was less obvious than when implanting a classical PP endoprosthesis. This reaction contributed to the earlier sprouting of collagen fivers around the rigid implant monofilaments. At 2 and 3 months after the implantation of PP mesh in both groups of animals, there were no advantages in the regenerate formed. Conclusions: Introduction of PP mesh with suture fixation and rigid monofilament PP mesh without fixation induces the natural response to the integration of the endoprosthesis, which is characterized by aseptic inflammation followed by pronounced fibrosis around the implant. Such processes, occurring in response to the implantation of synthetic polypropylene mesh, increase local mechanical tissue resistance, and can create additional strength against recurrence of inguinal hernias.