Differentiation of biologic scaffold materials through physicomechanical, thermal, and enzymatic degradation techniques.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the physicomechanical, thermal, and degradation properties of several types of biologic scaffold materials to differentiate between the various materials. BACKGROUND: As more biologic scaffold materials arrive on the market, it is critical that surgeons understand the properties of each material and are provided with resources to determine the suitability of these products for specific applications such as hernia repair. METHODS: Twelve biologic scaffold materials were evaluated, including crosslinked and non-crosslinked; those of bovine, human, and porcine origin; and derivatives of pericardium, dermis, and small intestine submucosa. Physicomechanical, thermal, and degradation properties were evaluated through biomechanical testing, modulated differential scanning calorimetry, and collagenase digestion assays, respectively. Biomechanical testing included suture retention, tear strength, uniaxial tensile, and ball burst techniques. RESULTS: All scaffolds exhibited suture retention strengths greater than 20 N, but only half of the scaffolds exhibited tear resistance greater than 20 N, indicating that some scaffolds may not provide adequate resistance to tearing. A wide range of burst strengths were observed ranging from 66.2 ± 10.8 N/cm for Permacol to 1,028.0 ± 199.1 N/cm for X-Thick AlloDerm, and all scaffolds except SurgiMend, Strattice, and CollaMend exhibited strains in the physiological range of 10% to 30% (at a stress of 16 N/cm). Thermal analysis revealed differences between crosslinked and non-crosslinked materials with crosslinked bovine pericardium and porcine dermis materials exhibiting a higher melting temperature than their non-crosslinked counterparts. Similarly, the collagenase digestion assay revealed that crosslinked bovine pericardium materials resisted enzymatic degradation significantly longer than non-crosslinked bovine pericardium. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences were observed because of cross-linking, some crosslinked and non-crosslinked materials exhibited very similar properties. Variables other than cross-linking, such as decellularization/sterilization treatments or species/tissue type also contribute to the properties of the scaffolds.

Effect of repetitive loading on the mechanical properties of synthetic hernia repair materials.

BACKGROUND: Hernia repair materials undergo repeated loading while in the body, and the impact on mechanical properties is unknown. It was hypothesized that exposure to repetitive loading would lead to decreased tensile strength and increased strain, and that these differences would become more pronounced with greater loading and unloading sequences. STUDY DESIGN: Polypropylene, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, composite barrier, and partially absorbable meshes were evaluated. Twenty specimens (7.5 × 7.5 cm) were prepared from each material. Five specimens were subjected to ball burst testing to determine baseline biomechanical properties. Cycles of 10, 100, and 1,000 loading sequences were also performed (n = 5 each). RESULTS: BardMesh (CR Bard/Davol), Dualmesh (WL Gore), and Prolene (Ethicon) exhibited significantly reduced tensile strength; BardMesh, Proceed (Ethicon), Prolene, ProLite (Atrium Medical), ProLite Ultra (Atrium Medical), and Ultrapro (Ethicon) exhibited significantly increased strain after exposure to 1,000 cycles compared with their baseline properties. BardMesh and Prolene demonstrated both reduced tensile strength and increased strain values after 1,000 cycles, suggesting that repetitive loading has the greatest effects on these materials. In addition, BardMesh and Prolene exhibited progressively worsening effects as the number of cycles was increased. CONCLUSIONS: Deterioration of the tensile strength of the mesh or an increase in the ability of the mesh material to stretch (ie, increased strain values) could potentially lead to hernia recurrence or a poor functional result. However, the results of this study should not be interpreted to mean that hernia repair materials will fail in the body after only 10, 100, or 1,000 cycles. The conditions used in this study were more extreme than most physiologic scenarios and were intended as a pilot investigation into how the mechanical properties of hernia repair materials are affected by in vitro cyclic testing.