% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Eickhoff:885559,
author = {Eickhoff, Roman Marius and Kroh, Andreas and Eickhoff,
Simon and Heise, Daniel and Helmedag, Marius Julian and
Tolba, Rene H and Klinge, Uwe and Neumann, Ulf Peter and
Klink, Christian Daniel and Lambertz, Andreas},
title = {{A} peritoneal defect covered by intraperitoneal mesh
prosthesis effects an increased and distinctive foreign body
reaction in a minipig model},
journal = {Journal of biomaterials applications},
volume = {35},
number = {6},
issn = {1530-8022},
address = {Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]},
publisher = {Sage},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-03930},
pages = {732-739},
year = {2020},
note = {The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
supportfor the research, authorship, and/or publication of
thisarticle: This study was granted by the BMBF
(FederalMinistry of Education and Research) (Funding
number:13N12599.},
abstract = {Background: The incidence of incisional hernia is with up
to $30\%$ one of the frequent long-term complication
afterlaparotomy. After establishing minimal invasive
operations, the laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh
technique(lap. IPOM) was first described in 1993. Little is
known about the foreign body reaction of IPOM-meshes, which
covereda defect of the parietal peritoneum. This is becoming
more important, since IPOM procedure with
peritoneal-sacresection and hernia port closing (IPOM plus)
is more frequently used.Methods: In 18 female minipigs, two
out of three Polyvinylidene-fluoride (PVDF) -meshes (I:
standard IPOM; II: IPOMwith modified structure [bigger
pores]; III: IPOM with the same structure as IPOM
IIþdegradable hydrogel-coating)were placed in a
laparoscopic IPOM procedure. Before mesh placement, a 2x2cm
peritoneal defect was created. After30 days, animals were
euthanized, adhesions were evaluated by re-laparoscopy and
mesh samples were explanted forhistological and
immunohistochemichal investigations.Results: All animals
recovered after implantation and had no complications during
the follow-up period. Analysingforeign body reaction, the
IPOM II mesh had a significant smaller inner granuloma,
compared to the other meshes (IPOMII: 8.4 mm1.3 vs. IPOM I
9.1 mm1.3, p<0.001). The degradable hydrogel coating does
not prevent adhesionsmeasured by Diamond score (p¼0.46). A
peritoneal defect covered by a standard or modified IPOM
mesh was asignificant factor for increasing foreign body
granuloma, the amount of CD3þ lymphocytes, CD68þ
macrophages anddecrease of pore size.Conclusion: A
peritoneal defect covered by IPOM prostheses leads to an
increased foreign body reaction compared tointact
peritoneum. Whenever feasible, a peritoneal defect should be
closed accurately before placing an IPOM-mesh toavoid an
excessive foreign body reaction and therefore inferior
biomaterial properties of the prosthesis.},
cin = {INM-7},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {33331198},
UT = {WOS:000583370400001},
doi = {10.1177/0885328220963918},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/885559},
}