ABSTRACT
Abstract Purpose: To compare the polypropylene mesh (Marlex®) to Vicryl®, Parietex composite® and Ultrapro® meshes to assess the occurrence of adhesions in the intraperitoneal implantation. Methods: Sixty Wistar rats were allocated into three groups: PP+V, in which all the animals received a polypropylene and a Vicryl® mesh; PP+PC, with the implantation of polypropylene and Parietex composite® meshes and PP+UP, in which there was implantation of polypropylene and Ultrapro®. Macroscopic analysis was performed 28 days later to assess the percentage of mesh area affected by adhesion. Results: in the PP+ V group, the Vicryl® mesh showed lower adhesion formation (p=0.013). In the PP+PC, there were no differences between polypropylene and Parietex composite® (p=0.765). In the PP+UP group, Ultrapro® and polypropylene meshes were equivalent (p=0.198) . Conclusion: All the four meshes led to adhesions, with the Vicryl® mesh showing the least potential for its formation.
Subject(s)
Animals , Male , Rats , Polyesters , Polyglactin 910 , Polypropylenes , Surgical Mesh , Tissue Adhesions/prevention & control , Collagen , Hernia, Ventral/surgery , Prostheses and Implants , Biocompatible Materials , Random Allocation , Rats, Wistar , Models, Animal , Abdominal Wall/surgeryABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: to compare intraperitoneal adhesion formation in rats when using polypropylene and polypropylene with poliglecaprone meshes. Methods: we used twenty male, Wistar rats, divided in two groups. In group 1, the rats received the polypropylene mesh on their right side and the polypropylene with poliglecaprone mesh on their left side. In group 2 the position of the meshes was inverted. After 30 days, we analyzed the presence or not of adhesion formation, including only those over the meshes. The findings undergone an analysis through the Mann-Whitney test, at a level of significance of p≤0.05. Results: all meshes presented adhesions. We verified that, for the polypropylene meshes, the percentage of their surface covered by adhesions varied from 10.5 to 100%, with an average of 34.07±24.21%, while for the polypropylene with poliglecaprone mesh, the percentage covered by adhesions varied between 8.5% and 100%, with an average of 44.7±32.85% (p=0.12). Conclusion: both meshes lead to adhesion formation, none being superior to the other.
RESUMO Objetivo: comparar a formação de aderências intraperitoneais em ratos, com o uso de tela de polipropileno e tela composta de polipropileno e poliglecaprone. Métodos: vinte ratos Wistar machos, foram alocados em dois grupos. No grupo 1 os ratos receberam tela de polipropileno no lado direito e tela de polipropileno e poliglecaprone no lado esquerdo. No grupo 2 inverteu-se a posição das telas. Analisou-se a presença ou não de aderências após 30 dias, sendo incluídas apenas aderências sobre as telas. Os resultados foram submetidos à análise estatística, adotando-se como nível de significância p≤0,05. Resultados: todas as telas se apresentaram com aderências. Verificou-se que, na tela de polipropileno, a porcentagem de superfície coberta por aderências variou entre 10,5 a 100%, com média 34,07±24,21% enquanto que na tela de polipropileno e poliglecaprone a porcentagem de tela coberta por aderências variou entre 8,5 a 100%, com média 44,7±32,85% (p=0,12) . Conclusão: ambas as telas dão origem às aderências, não havendo vantagem de aplicação no reparo intraperitoneal de uma em relação à outra.