Acta chirurgica Belgica · 2016
Sepramesh and postoperative peritoneal adhesions in a rat model.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arung Willy, Drion Pierre, Detry Olivier
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to investigate the safety and the anti-postoperative peritoneal adhesion (PPA) characteristics of Sepramesh® (Davol), a composite mesh made of polypropylene covered with Seprafilm, when intraperitoneally placed in a rat model.
METHODS: Twenty male rats were randomized into a control group and a Sepramesh group. They underwent a primary surgical procedure aiming to induce a peritoneal injury in order to induce PPAs. In the Sepramesh group, the burnt peritoneum was covered with a 2-cm diameter disc of Sepramesh prosthesis. The mesh was fixed to the parietal peritoneum with four 3-0 absorbable stitches. PPAs were assessed during a second laparotomy 10 days later using quantitative and qualitative scoring systems.
RESULTS: There was no difference in terms of mean number of PPAs between both groups. All the rats from the control group developed PPAs. In the Sepramesh group, no adhesions were observed at the site of the injured peritoneum that had been covered with the Sepramesh prosthesis, but PPAs occurred at the extremities of the mesh, where there was close contact between polypropylene and viscera, or where the fixation sutures were placed. The severity and the type of adhesions were significantly higher in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that for the Sepramesh prostheses, the Seprafilm layer might be effective in PPA prevention, but damage caused by the section and fixation of Sepramesh should be limited in order to limit PPAs.
METHODS: Twenty male rats were randomized into a control group and a Sepramesh group. They underwent a primary surgical procedure aiming to induce a peritoneal injury in order to induce PPAs. In the Sepramesh group, the burnt peritoneum was covered with a 2-cm diameter disc of Sepramesh prosthesis. The mesh was fixed to the parietal peritoneum with four 3-0 absorbable stitches. PPAs were assessed during a second laparotomy 10 days later using quantitative and qualitative scoring systems.
RESULTS: There was no difference in terms of mean number of PPAs between both groups. All the rats from the control group developed PPAs. In the Sepramesh group, no adhesions were observed at the site of the injured peritoneum that had been covered with the Sepramesh prosthesis, but PPAs occurred at the extremities of the mesh, where there was close contact between polypropylene and viscera, or where the fixation sutures were placed. The severity and the type of adhesions were significantly higher in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that for the Sepramesh prostheses, the Seprafilm layer might be effective in PPA prevention, but damage caused by the section and fixation of Sepramesh should be limited in order to limit PPAs.