Wiadomosci lekarskie (Warsaw, Poland : 1960) · 2020
Strength comparison of different methods of closing the anterior abdominal wall defect (experimental study).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ioffe Oleksandr Yu, Tarasiuk Tetiana V, Kryvopustov Mykola S, Stetsenko Oleksandr P, Tsiura Yuri P, Dibrova Yuri A, Vasilyev Artem V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare the mesh implantation and the strength of the mesh fixation to the anterior abdominal wall by modelling the intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) with and without aponeurotic defect closure.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The experimental animals were randomly divided into 2 groups of 6 rabbits. In experimental group IPOM was modelled without hernia defect closure, in control group - with its suturing. The macroscopic assessment of the severity of adhesions, histological examination of the removed "anterior abdominal wall - mesh" complex and strength of the mesh fixation to the anterior abdominal wall were performed on the 90th day.
RESULTS: Results: In both groups, the displacement or complete separation of the mesh from the parietal peritoneum was not observed. The extent of adhesion formation in the abdominal cavity and strength of the mesh fixation are comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). In the experimental group, the mesh was surrounded by scar tissue, mesothelioma lining was not traced. There were also moderate signs of inflammation, which were not seen in the control group.
CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The strength of the mesh fixation to the parietal peritoneum and its implantation into the anterior abdominal wall is comparable with or without aponeurotic defect closure during the experimental modelling of IPOM.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The experimental animals were randomly divided into 2 groups of 6 rabbits. In experimental group IPOM was modelled without hernia defect closure, in control group - with its suturing. The macroscopic assessment of the severity of adhesions, histological examination of the removed "anterior abdominal wall - mesh" complex and strength of the mesh fixation to the anterior abdominal wall were performed on the 90th day.
RESULTS: Results: In both groups, the displacement or complete separation of the mesh from the parietal peritoneum was not observed. The extent of adhesion formation in the abdominal cavity and strength of the mesh fixation are comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). In the experimental group, the mesh was surrounded by scar tissue, mesothelioma lining was not traced. There were also moderate signs of inflammation, which were not seen in the control group.
CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The strength of the mesh fixation to the parietal peritoneum and its implantation into the anterior abdominal wall is comparable with or without aponeurotic defect closure during the experimental modelling of IPOM.