• L Melman, E D Jenkins, N A Hamilton, L C Bender, M D Brodt, C R Deeken, S C Greco, M M Frisella, and B D Matthews.
• Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, 63110, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
• Hernia. 2011 Apr 1; 15 (2): 157-64.

PurposeBiologic meshes have unique physical properties as a result of manufacturing techniques such as decellularization, crosslinking, and sterilization. The purpose of this study is to directly compare the biocompatibility profiles of five different biologic meshes, AlloDerm(®) (non-crosslinked human dermal matrix), PeriGuard(®) (crosslinked bovine pericardium), Permacol(®) (crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), Strattice(®) (non-crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), and Veritas(®) (non-crosslinked bovine pericardium), using a porcine model of ventral hernia repair.MethodsFull-thickness fascial defects were created in 20 Yucatan minipigs and repaired with the retromuscular placement of biologic mesh 3 weeks later. Animals were euthanized at 1 month and the repair sites were subjected to tensile testing and histologic analysis. Samples of unimplanted (de novo) meshes and native porcine abdominal wall were also analyzed for their mechanical properties.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the biomechanical characteristics between any of the mesh-repaired sites at 1 month postimplantation or between the native porcine abdominal wall without implanted mesh and the mesh-repaired sites (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Histologically, non-crosslinked materials exhibited greater cellular infiltration, extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, and neovascularization compared to crosslinked meshes.ConclusionsWhile crosslinking differentiates biologic meshes with regard to cellular infiltration, ECM deposition, scaffold degradation, and neovascularization, the integrity and strength of the repair site at 1 month is not significantly impacted by crosslinking or by the de novo strength/stiffness of the mesh.

19 keywords...

hide…