Hernias are defects in which an anatomical fascia is breached resulting in ectopic positioning of an organ into an orifice which routinely does not contain it. Intervention often involves repositioning translocated organs and repair of damaged fascia using exogenous grafts. Despite hernia prevalence, repairs can still fail due to postoperative complications, such as chronic pain and decreased mobility. This study compared repair capacities and characterized the foreign body response elicited by a number of hernia repair grafts to deduce their bulk inflammatory properties while also concluding the point in their fabrication when these are inferred. Materials derived from human dermis (Alloderm^®), porcine dermis (Permacol™, patch A, patch D and Strattice^®), porcine small-intestinal submucosa (Surgisis™) and a synthetic (multifilament Surgipro™) were implanted into a rat full-thickness abdominal wall excision model, incubated for up to 2 years and characterized histopathologically. Surgisis™ resorbed the fastest of the materials tested (1–3 months) resulting in a mechanically stable parietal peritoneum. Decellularization using sodium dodecyl sulfate (patch A) stimulated a large early inflammatory response which ultimately may have contributed to increased resorption of porcine dermal matrix however the remaining materials typically persisted throughout the 2-year incubation. Cross-linking porcine dermis using 1,6-hexamethylene disocyanate (vs. an identical noncross-linked counterpart) showed no difference in cell recruitment or material integration over 2 years. Typically Strattice^® and Alloderm^® recruited larger early populations of cells than Permacol™; however, over extended periods of time in vivo this response normalized. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 102B: 709–720, 2014.

REFERENCES

1 Witko-Sarasat V, Rieu P, Descamps-Latscha B, Lesavre P, Halbwachs-Mecarelli L. Neutrophils: Molecules, functions and pathophysiological aspects. Lab Invest 2000; 80: 617–653.
10.1038/labinvest.3780067
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Kumar V, Sharma A. Neutrophil: Cinderella of the immune system. Int Immunophamacol 2010; 10: 1325–1334.
10.1016/j.intimp.2010.08.012
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Pham CT. Neutrophil serine protease fine tune the immune system. Int J Cell Biol Biochem 2008; 40: 1317–1333.
10.1016/j.biocel.2007.11.008
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Kikly K, Lotze MT. The skin and normal wound healing process. In: MT Lotze, AW Thomson, editor. Dendritic Cells, 2nd ed. London: Elsevier. 2001. pp 539–545.
10.1016/B978-012455851-9/50077-8
Google Scholar
5 Haney AF. Identification of macrophages at the site of peritoneal injury: Evidence supporting a direct role for peritoneal macrophages in healing injured peritoneum. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 988–995.
10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00490-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Midwood KS, Williams LV, Schwarzbauer JE. Tissue repair and the dynamics of the extracellular matrix. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2004; 36: 1031–1037.
10.1016/j.biocel.2003.12.003
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Cassell OCS, Hofer SOP, Morrison WA, Knight KR. Vascularisation of tissue-engineered grafts: The regulation of angiogenesis in reconstructive surgery and disease states. Brit J Plast Surg 2002; 55: 603–610.
10.1054/bjps.2002.3950
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Butterfield TA, Best TM, Merrick MA. The dual roles of neutrophils and macrophages in inflammation: A critical balance between tissue damage and repair. J Athl Train 2006; 4: 457–465.
Google Scholar
9 Rubartelli A, Lotze MT. Inside, outside, upside down: Damage-associated molecular-pattern molecules (DAMPs) and redox. Trends Immunol 2007; 28: 429–436.
10.1016/j.it.2007.08.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Williams D. To engineer is to create: The link between engineering and regeneration. Trends Biotechnol 2006; 24: 4–8.
10.1016/j.tibtech.2005.10.006
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 van't Riet M, de Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Bonjer HJ, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J. Mesh repair for postoperative wound dehiscence in the presence of infection: Is absorbable mesh safer than non-absorbable mesh. Hernia 2007; 11: 409–413.
Google Scholar
12 Hiles M, Ritchie RDR, Altizer AM. Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair? A systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov 2009; 16: 26–37.
10.1177/1553350609331397
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Smart NJ, Marshall M, Daniels IR. Biological meshes: A review of their use in abdominal wall hernia repairs. Surgeon 2012; 10: 159–171.
10.1016/j.surge.2012.02.006
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Bilsel Y, Abci I. The search for ideal hernia repair; mesh, materials and types. Int J Surg 2012; 10: 317–321.
10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.05.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Bryan N, Rhodes NP, Hunt JA. Derivation and performance of an entirely autologous injectable hydrogel delivery system for cell-based therapies. Biomaterials 2009; 30: 180–188.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.09.003
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Takami Y, Matsuda T, Yoshitake M, Hanumadass M, Walter RJ. Dispase/detergent treated dermal matrix as a dermal substitute. Burns 1996; 22: 182–190.
10.1016/0305-4179(95)00123-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Keane TJ, Londono R, Turner NJ, Badylak SF. Consequences of ineffective decellularisation of biologic scaffolds on the host response. Biomaterials 2012; 33: 1771–1781.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.10.054
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Gilbert TW, Sellaro TL, Badylak SF. Decellularisation of tissues and organs. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 3675–3683.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Xu H, Wan H, Sandor M, Qi S, Ervin F, Harper JR, Silverman RP, McQuillan DJ. Host response to human acellular dermal matrix transplantation in a primate model of abdominal wall repair. Tissue Eng Part A 2008; 14: 2009–2019.
10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0316
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullis B, Simmons-Byrd A, Morff R. Morphologic study of small intestine submucosa as a body wall repair device. J Surg Res 2002; 103: 190–202.
10.1006/jsre.2001.6349
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Gilbert TW, Stewart-Akers AM, Simmons-Byrd A, Badylak S. Degradation and remodelling of small intestinal submucosa in canine Achilles tendon repair. J Bone Joint Surg 2007; 89: 621–630.
10.2106/JBJS.E.00742
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Guo S, DiPietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 219–229.
10.1177/0022034509359125
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Liang HC, Chang Y, Hsu CK, Lee MH, Sung HW. Effects of cross-linking degree of an acellular biological tissue on its tissue regeneration pattern. Biomaterials 2004; 25: 3541–3552.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.109
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Deeken CR, Melman L, Jenkins ED, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of cross-linked and non cross-linked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 212: 880–888.
10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.01.006
Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Zhang J, Wang GY, Xiao YP, Fan LY, Wang Q. The biomechanical behaviour and host response to porcine-derived small intestine submucosa, pericardium and dermal matrix acellular grafts in a rat abdominal defect model. Biomaterials 2011; 32: 7086–7095.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Petter-Puchner AH, Fortelny RH, Walder N, Mittermayr R, Ohlinger W, van Griensven M, Redl H. Adverse effects associated with the use of porcine cross-linked collagen implants in an experimental model of porcine incisional hernia. J Surg Res 2008; 145: 105–110.
10.1016/j.jss.2007.03.090
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Butler CE, Burns NK, Campbell KT, Mathur AB, Jaffari MV, Rios CN. Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked porcine acellualr dermal matrices for ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 211: 368–376.
10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.024
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Bryan N, Ashwin H, Smart N, Bayon Y, Scarborough N, Hunt JA. The innate oxygen dependent immune pathway is a sensitive parameter to predict the performance of biological graft materials. Biomaterials 2012; 33: 6380–6392.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.058
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Valentin JE, Turner NJ, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF. Functional skeletal muscle formation with a biologic scaffold. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 7475–4784.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.06.039
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Brown BN, Londono R, Tottey S, Zhang L, Kukla KA, Wolf MT, Daly KA, Reing JE, Badylak SF. Macrophage phenotype as a predictor of constructive remodelling following the implantation of biologically derived surgical mesh materials. Acta Biomater 2012; 8: 978–987.
10.1016/j.actbio.2011.11.031
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Beres A, Christison-Lagay ER, Romao RLP, Langer JC. Evaluation of Surgisis for patch repair of abdominal wall defects in children. J Paed Surg 2012; 47: 917–919.
10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.01.046
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Orenstein S, Qiao Y, Kaur M, Klueh U, Kreutzer D, Novitsky Y. In vitro activation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells induced by human biologic meshes. J Surg Res 2010; 158: 10–14.
10.1016/j.jss.2009.05.033
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 Petter-Puchner AH, Dietz UA. Biological implants in abdominal wall repair. BJS 2013; 100: 987–988.
10.1002/bjs.9156
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume102, Issue4

May 2014

Pages 709-720

The in vivo evaluation of tissue-based biomaterials in a rat full-thickness abdominal wall defect model

Abstract

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

The in vivo evaluation of tissue-based biomaterials in a rat full-thickness abdominal wall defect model

Abstract

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information