Analysis with Ultrasound of Different Surgical Meshes for Abdominal Hernia Repair: Experimental Study
- *Corresponding Author:
- João Vicente Machado Grossi
Department of Surgery, General Surgery, Saint Lucas Hospital
Pontific Catholic University of Porto Alegre
PUCRS Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil
Tel: 55 51 81550660
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: April 12, 2014; Accepted date: June 14, 2014; Published date: June 16, 2014
Citation: Grossi JVM, Manna BB, Montes JHM, Nicola RF, Nery LA, et al. (2014) Analysis with Ultrasound of Different Surgical Meshes for Abdominal Hernia Repair: Experimental Study. Anat Physiol 4:148. doi: 10.4172/2161-0940.1000148
Copyright: © 2014 Grossi JVM, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Objective: To evaluate the ultrasound dampening effect of the different types of meshes abdominal surgery after implantation in Wistar rats.
Method: We used two Wistar rats, assessed positions and different types of meshes. The animals were anesthetized prior to surgery to open the abdominal cavity for placement of the prosthesis. Divided into three stages, 1) analysis of the abdominal cavity with ultrasound and no mesh 2) onlay position (mesh placed anterior the abdominal muscles) 3) underlay (intraperitoneal) for the posterior muscular. The meshes were used polypropylene (PP), polyester (PE), polypropylene/poliglecaprone (PU), polytetrafluoroethylene condensate (MO), polyester/ collagen (PC) and polypropylene/polydioxanone/oxidized regenerated cellulose (PRO). The animals were euthanized after the procedure.
Results: There was no need to exclude the animals. The initial assessment showed no areas of difficulty or ease that would harm the exam. In all analyzes there was no problem identifying the the skin and subcutaneous tissue. There was a statistically significant difference in the attenuation of the meshes in both the onlay position p<0.001. Underlay position there was a small improvement in the graduation, with PE median (min-max) of 3 (2-5), PP, PU with 2 (1-5) and PC 2 (2-5) followed by PRO mesh with 1 (2-5) and MO with 0 (0-5) with statistical significance at p=0.001. However there was no comparison to the same mesh in two positions on the all meshes.
Conclusion: All types of meshes used in this study was independent of the position of the sound degree attenuation in ultrasound examination. The polyester mesh got to take a lower degree of attenuation compared with other meshes of the study. Is needed a new test to check the attenuation in the long term.