Abstract
In vivo tissue responses were compared for three commercially available polypropylene suburethral slings that differ markedly in fabric structure and in size of resulting interstices and pores. All three elicited the same basic inflammatory response; however, individual fabric structures produced distinct differences in tissue formation within each mesh. The presence of numerous, closely spaced, small diameter filaments prevented formation of extensive fibrous connective tissue within two slings (ObTape and IVS Tunneller mesh). The much larger diameter monofilament and open knit structure of the Monarc sling permitted the most extensive fibrous tissue integration. These differences may be of interest to physicians considering clinical use.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
European markets for urological devices (2004) Medical Technology Report EUUR04, August 2004, p 57, Millennium Research Group, Toronto, ON, Canada
Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21
Bellón JM, Bujan J, Contreras L, Hernando A (1995) Integration of biomaterials implanted into abdominal wall: process of scar formation and macrophage response. Biomaterials 16:381–387
Bellon JM, Contreras LA, Bujan J, Palomares D, Carrera-San Martin A (1998) Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials 19:669–675
Klinge U, Junge K, Stumpf M, Öttinger AP, Klosterhalfen B (2002) Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. J Biomed Mater Res 63:129–136
White RA, Hirose FM, Sproat RW, Lawrence RS, Nelson RJ (1981) Histopathologic observations after short-term implantation of two porous elastomers in dogs. Biomaterials 2:171–176
Morehead JM, Holt GR (1994) Soft-tissue response to synthetic biomaterials. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 27:195–201
White RA (1988) The effect of porosity and biomaterial on the healing and long-term mechanical properties of vascular prostheses. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 34:95–100
Taylor DF, Smith FB (1972) Porous methyl methacrylate as an implant material. J Biomed Mater Res Symp 2:467–479
Long J, Tan E, Uitto J, DeSantis S, Shors E, Gebre B, Nelson R, Klein S, Goldberg L, White R (1982) Implant microstructure and collagen synthesis. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 28:195–199
Homsy CA, Kent JN, Hinds EC (1973) Materials for oral implantation—biological and functional criteria. J Am Dental Assoc 86:817–832
Williams DF (1973) The response of the body environment to implants. In: Williams DF, Roaf R (eds) Implants in surgery. WB Saunders, London, pp 203–297
Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Hermanns B, Klinge U (2002) Influence of implantation interval on the long-term biocompatibility of surgical mesh. Br J Surg 89:1043–1048
Staskin DR, Plzak L (2002) Synthetic slings: pros and cons. Curr Urol Rep 3:414–417
Acknowledgements
R.C. Grant, PhD, W.Mirsch. Pathology: P. L Termin, DVM, PhD, Lincoln Associates, St. Paul, MN. This work was supported by American Medical Systems (AMS). R. C. Grant& W. Mirsch are employees of AMS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slack, M., Sandhu, J.S., Staskin, D.R. et al. In vivo comparison of suburethral sling materials. Int Urogynecol J 17, 106–110 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1320-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1320-7