Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair

L. Melman, E. D. Jenkins, Nicholas Hamilton, L. C. Bender, M. D. Brodt, C. R. Deeken, S. C. Greco, M. M. Frisella, B. D. Matthews

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

79 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Biologic 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. Methods: Full-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. Results: There 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. Conclusions: While 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)157-164
Number of pages8
JournalHernia
Volume15
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ventral Hernia
Herniorrhaphy
Swine
Pericardium
Abdominal Wall
Skin
Extracellular Matrix
Miniature Swine

Keywords

  • Biologic mesh
  • Crosslinking
  • Remodeling
  • Tensile strength
  • Ventral hernia repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Melman, L., Jenkins, E. D., Hamilton, N., Bender, L. C., Brodt, M. D., Deeken, C. R., ... Matthews, B. D. (2011). Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia, 15(2), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0770-0

Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. / Melman, L.; Jenkins, E. D.; Hamilton, Nicholas; Bender, L. C.; Brodt, M. D.; Deeken, C. R.; Greco, S. C.; Frisella, M. M.; Matthews, B. D.

In: Hernia, Vol. 15, No. 2, 04.2011, p. 157-164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Melman, L, Jenkins, ED, Hamilton, N, Bender, LC, Brodt, MD, Deeken, CR, Greco, SC, Frisella, MM & Matthews, BD 2011, 'Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair', Hernia, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 157-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0770-0
Melman, L. ; Jenkins, E. D. ; Hamilton, Nicholas ; Bender, L. C. ; Brodt, M. D. ; Deeken, C. R. ; Greco, S. C. ; Frisella, M. M. ; Matthews, B. D. / Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. In: Hernia. 2011 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 157-164.
@article{5d327f691e9d4f9d9c6156dc391f6d51,
title = "Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair",
abstract = "Purpose: Biologic 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{\circledR} (non-crosslinked human dermal matrix), PeriGuard{\circledR} (crosslinked bovine pericardium), Permacol{\circledR} (crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), Strattice{\circledR} (non-crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), and Veritas{\circledR} (non-crosslinked bovine pericardium), using a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Methods: Full-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. Results: There 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. Conclusions: While 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.",
keywords = "Biologic mesh, Crosslinking, Remodeling, Tensile strength, Ventral hernia repair",
author = "L. Melman and Jenkins, {E. D.} and Nicholas Hamilton and Bender, {L. C.} and Brodt, {M. D.} and Deeken, {C. R.} and Greco, {S. C.} and Frisella, {M. M.} and Matthews, {B. D.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s10029-010-0770-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "157--164",
journal = "Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery",
issn = "1265-4906",
publisher = "Springer Paris",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair

AU - Melman, L.

AU - Jenkins, E. D.

AU - Hamilton, Nicholas

AU - Bender, L. C.

AU - Brodt, M. D.

AU - Deeken, C. R.

AU - Greco, S. C.

AU - Frisella, M. M.

AU - Matthews, B. D.

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - Purpose: Biologic 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. Methods: Full-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. Results: There 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. Conclusions: While 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.

AB - Purpose: Biologic 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. Methods: Full-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. Results: There 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. Conclusions: While 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.

KW - Biologic mesh

KW - Crosslinking

KW - Remodeling

KW - Tensile strength

KW - Ventral hernia repair

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953276039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953276039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10029-010-0770-0

DO - 10.1007/s10029-010-0770-0

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 157

EP - 164

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

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

SN - 1265-4906

IS - 2

ER -