Year 2018 Vol. 26 No 4




Kursk State Medical University 1, Kursk
Saint-Petersburg State University of Industrial Technologies and Design 2, Saint-Petersburg,
The Russian Federation

Objective. To study the changes of anterior abdominal wall tissues in experimental animals with implantation of new light strengthened endoprosthesis for hernioplasty.
Methods. Experimental studies were conducted on 60 rabbits of Chinchilla breed. All animals were divided into 2 series of experiments. In the first (control) group animals were implanted with a light polypropylene endoprosthesis, in the second (experimental) group animals were implanted a new net endoprosthesis from monofilament polypropylene, which consisted of the basic and strengthened zones in the form of horizontally located stripes, alternating with each other mono-thread with a larger diameter. In the experiment the tissue response of abdominal wall with implantation of endoprosthesis in the position onlay was studied on the 7th, 30th, 60th, 90th and 180th days.
Results. It was found out, that the light strengthened endoprosthesis was identical to the light endoprosthesis by the severity and amount of inflammatory response in late periods (90 and 180 days), as well as by cellular structure and cellular index, reflecting the character of wound process during the whole experiment (from the 7th till 180th day). Histological study showed that the use of the both materials does not lead to deterioration of morpho-functional condition of the muscle layer of the abdominal wall. Using morphometrical study from the 7th till the 30th days we detected that cellular infiltration area decreased by 3.9 times in a control group and by 4.1 times in an experimental group. From the 30th till the 180th days the size of the capsule area increased by 1.6 times in a control and by 1.2 times in experimental series. At late periods (on the 90th and 180th days) statistically significant differences of all these indicators between the series of experiment were not detected.
Conclusions. Introduction of the strengthened zone to the structure of the light endoprosthesis, including monofilaments of the larger diameter, does not lead to deterioration of abdominal tissue response to the implanted material, that presents prospective for its use in hernioplasty.

Keywords: light endoprosthesis, light strengthened endoprosthesis, hernioplasty, cellular infiltration area, area of connective tissue capsule, cellular index, polypropylene endoprosthesis
p. 402-411 of the original issue
  1. Shestakov AL, Inakov AG, Ckhovrebov AT. Estimation of the effectiveness of hernioplasty in patients with hernias of the anterior abdominal wall using the sf-36. Vestn nats med-khirurg tsentra im NI pirogova. 2017;(3):50-53. (in Russ.)
  2. Anurov MV, Titkova SM, Ettinger AP. Sravnenie rezultatov plastiki gryzhevogo defekta standartnymi i legkimi setchatymi endoprotezami s odinakovym trikotazhnym perepleteniem. Biul Eksperim Biologii i Meditsiny. 2010;150(10):433-39. (in Russ.)
  3. Timerbulatov MV, Timerbulatov ShV, Gataullina EZ, Valitova ER. Postoperative ventral hernias: current state of the problem. Med Vestn Bashkortostana. 2013;8(5):101-107. (in Russ.)
  4. Junge K, Binnebösel M, von Trotha KT, Rosch R, Klinge U, Neumann UP, Lynen Jansen P. Mesh biocompatibility: effects of cellular inflammation and tissue remodelling. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2012 Feb;397(2):255-70. doi: 10.1007/s00423-011-0780-0
  5. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B. Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes. Hernia. 2012 Jun; 16(3):251-58. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-0913-6
  6. Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J, Smedberg S, Granlund H, Heikkinen TJ. Three-year results of a randomized clinical trial of lightweight or standard polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg. 2006 Sep;93(9):1056-59. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5403
  7. Smietanski M, Bury K, Smietanska IA, Owczuk R, Paradowski T. Five-year results of a randomised controlled multi-centre study comparing heavy-weight knitted versus low-weight, non-woven polypropylene implants in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia. 2011 Oct;15(5):495-501. doi: 10.1007/s10029-011-0808-y
  8. Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD, Carbonell AM, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res. 2006 Nov;136(1):1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.05.022
  9. Lintin LAD, Kingsnorth AN. Mechanical failure of a lightweight polypropylene mesh. Hernia. 2014 Feb;18(1):131-33. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-0959-5
  10. Petro CC, Nahabet EH, Criss CN, Orenstein SB, von Recum HA, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ. Central failures of lightweight monofilament polyester mesh causing hernia recurrence: a cautionary note. Hernia. 2015 Feb;19(1):155-59. doi: 10.1007/s10029-014-1237-5
  11. Zuvela M, Galun D, Djurić-Stefanović A, Palibrk I, Petrović M, Milićević M. Central rupture and bulging of low-weight polypropylene mesh following recurrent incisional sublay hernioplasty. Hernia. 2014 Feb;18(1):135-40. doi: 10.1007/s10029-013-1197-1
  12. Anurov MV, Titkova SM, Oettinger AP. Biomechanical compatibility of surgical mesh and fascia being reinforced: dependence of experimental hernia defect repair results on anisotropic surgical mesh positioning. Hernia. 2012 Apr;16(2):199-10. doi: 10.1007/s10029-011-0877-y (in Russ.)
  13. Sukovatykh BS, Ivanov AV, Valuskaya NM, Gerasimchuk EV. The influence of late implantation fabric reaction on the choice of polypropylene endoprosthesis for preventive subaponeurotic plasty of the abdominal wall. Novosti Khirurgii. 2013;21(5):11-17. doi: 10.18484/2305-0047.2013.5.11 (in Russ.)
  14. Shestakov AL, Fedorov DN, Ivanchik IJ, Boeva IA, Bitarov TT. Comparative evaluation of standard, composite and lightweight synthetic prostheses for hernioplasty (experimental work). Kursk Nauch-Prakt Vestn Chelovek i Ego Zdorove. 2017;(2):81-87. doi: 10.21626/vestnik/2017-2/14 (in Russ.)
  15. Netiaga, AA, Parfenov AO, Nutfullina GM, Zhukovskii VA. Vliianie razlichnykh vidov endoprotezov dlia gernioplastiki na sostoianie myshts razlichnykh otdelov briushnoi stenki (eksperimentalnoe issledovanie). Kursk Nauch-Prakt Vestn Chelovek i Ego Zdorove. 2013;(4):26-32. (in Russ.)
Address for correspondence:
305041, The Russian Federation,
Kursk, K.Marx Str., 3,
Kursk State Medical University,
Department of General Surgery,
Tel. (4712) 52-98-62,
Boris S. Sukovatykh
Information about the authors:
Sukovatykh Boris S., MD, Professor, Head of the Department of General Surgery, Kursk State Medical University, Kursk, Russian Federation.
Polevoy Yuri Yu., Applicant for Candidates degree of the Department of General Surgery, Kursk State Medical University, Kursk, Russian Federation.
Netyaga Andrej A., PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Operative Surgery and Topographic Anatomy, Kursk State Medical University, Kursk, Russian Federation.
Blinkov Yurij Yu., MD, Professor of the Department of General Surgery, Kursk State Medical University, Kursk, Russian Federation.
Zhukovskiy Valeriy A., DS, Professor of the Department of Nanostructured, Fibrous and Composite Materials named after A.I. Meos, Supervisor of the Laboratory of Polymer Materials, Saint-Petersburg State University of Industrial Technologies and Design, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Contacts | ©Vitebsk State Medical University, 2007-2023