Comparative Study for Compatibility of Acellular Dermis (SureDerm(TM)) and Synthetic Material(PROCEED(R)) on Abdominal Wall Defect in Rabbit Models.
- Author:
Nak Heon KANG
1
;
Seung Han SONG
;
Dae Young KANG
;
Jae Hyoung AHN
;
Da Mi CHOI
;
Jin Young KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea. silverwine_@naver.com
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Abdominal wall defect;
Acellular dermis;
Synthetic material
- MeSH:
Abdominal Wall;
Acellular Dermis;
Basement Membrane;
Fibrosis;
Rabbits;
Tensile Strength
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
2011;38(2):135-142
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Deficiencies of the abdominal wall can be the a result of infection, surgery, trauma, or primary herniation. For abdominal wall reconstruction, synthetic materials have been shown to provide a better long-term success rate than primary fascial repair. But, synthetic materials cannot elicit angiogenesis or produce growth factor and are therefore plagued by an inability to clear infection. As a result of the inherent drawbacks of synthetic, significant effort has been spent on the identification of new bioprosthetic materials. The aim of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a synthetic material(PROCEED(R)) and an ADM(SureDerm(TM)) to repair abdominal wall defects in a rabbit models. METHODS: We measured the tensile strength of the SureDerm(TM) and PROCEED(R) by a Tension meter(Instron 4482). 16 Rabbit models were assigned to this study for abdominal wall reconstruction. Abdominal defect of 8 rabbits were reconstructed by PROCEED(R) and the rest were reconstructed by SureDerm(TM). We assessed gross and histologic examinations for the reconstructed abdominal wall. RESULTS: The tensile strenth of SureDerm(TM) and Gore Tex(R) is 14.64+/-0.51 Mpa, 8.54+/-0.45 Mpa. PROCEED(R) was estimated above the limits of measurement. Inflammatory reaction of PROCEED(R) persisted for 32weeks, but SureDerm(TM) decreased after 16weeks. Vascular ingrowth into the SureDerm(TM) was seen after 32 weeks. The basement membrane of SureDerm(TM) changed into a form of pseudoperitoneum. In PROCEED(R), it seemed like pseudoepithelial lining was made from the fibrosis around the mesh. CONCLUSION: In our study, the SureDerm(TM) not only have less inflammatory reaction and presented more angiogenesis than the PROCEED(R), but also have pseudoperitoneum formation. It is expected that SureDerm(TM) is useful for abdominal wall reconstruction. However, a long-term study of its usage consequences are thought to be needed.
