Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Tissue after Long-Term Implantation of Collagen and Polypropylene Meshes in Animal Models


Purpose: Pelvic floor reconstructive surgery has grown significantly in recent years. A wide variety of available types of meshes exist but the safety and success has not been adequately proven. We sought to evaluate the effects on dynamic biomechanical properties of tissue after long-term implantation of synthetic and biological grafts. Methods: A total of 96 New Zealand white female rabbits (approximately 3 kg) were used, 72 of which were surgically implanted with acellular, collagen mesh (n = 36) or nonabsorbable monofilament polypropylene mesh (n = 36). There was a no mesh-rupture of fascia group (n = 12) and a second, no-mesh, no-fascia rupture control group (n = 12). In the 59 rabbits, of 72 (13 died) tissue was harvested 3 months (n = 24), 6 months (n = 23) and 9 months (n = 12) later, while in the fascia rupture group, tissue was harvested 6 months later. Tissue samples (2 × 2 cm) underwent dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) testing during which the dynamic rigidity and tissue damping capacities were measured. The statistical analysis was performed with General Linear Model with Tukeys post hoc testing (sPss v.17.0). Results: With respect to mesh type, the rabbit tissue in which polypropylene mesh was used showed the greatest dynamic rigidity. Those with biological mesh delivered the lowest rigidity results, while the two other groups had almost similar behavior. The meshes exhibited their highest relative dynamic tissue stiffening effect at 9 months. Conclusions: Biological mesh causes lower tissue rigidity, resulting in inferior mechanical response and thus seems to be inferior to polypropylene.

Share and Cite:

M. Christodoulou, A. Papalois, D. Mouzakis, S. Zaoutsos, T. Kouranos, M. Seferlis, C. Katsifotis and A. Liapis, "Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Tissue after Long-Term Implantation of Collagen and Polypropylene Meshes in Animal Models," Open Journal of Urology, Vol. 3 No. 3, 2013, pp. 155-159. doi: 10.4236/oju.2013.33029.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] S. D. Abramowitch, A. Feola, Z. Jallah and Pa. Moalli, “Tissue Mechanics, Animal Models, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Review,” European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Vol. 144, No. S1, 2009, pp. S146-S158. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.022
[2] A. L. Olsen, V. J. Smith, J. O. Bergstrom, J. C. Colling and A. L. Clark, “Epidemiology of Surgically Managed Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 89, No. 4, 1997, pp. 501-506. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6
[3] G. R. Rogers, A. Villarreal, D. Kammerer-Doak and C. Qualls, “Sexual Function in Women with and without Urinary Incontinence and/or Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2001, pp. 361-365. doi:10.1007/s001920170012
[4] L. L. Subak, L. E. Waetjen, S. van den Eeden, D. H. Thom, E. Vittinghoff and J. S. Brown, “Cost of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery in the United States,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 98, No. 4, 2001, pp. 646-651. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01472-7
[5] J. S. Brown, L. E. Waetjen, L. L. Subak, D. H. Thom, S. Van den Eeden and E. Vittinghoff, “Pelvic organ Prolapse Surgery in the United States, 1997,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 186, No. 4, 2002, pp. 712-716. doi:10.1067/mob.2002.121897
[6] B. Chen, Y. Wen and M. L. Polan, “Elastolytic Activity in Women with Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” Neurourology and Urodynamics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2004, pp. 119-126. doi:10.1002/nau.20012
[7] A. Liapis, P. Bakas, A. Pafiti, D. Hassiakos, M. FrangosPlemenos and G. Creatsas, “Changes in the Quantity of Collagen Type I in Women with Genuine Stress Incontinence,” Urological Research, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000, pp. 323-326. doi:10.1007/s002400000120
[8] C. Birch and M. M. Fynes, “The Role of Synthetic and Biological Prostheses in Reconstructive Pelvic Floor Surgery,” Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2002, pp. 527-535. doi:10.1097/00001703-200210000-00015
[9] C. Birch, “The Use of Prosthetics in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery,” Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2005, pp. 979-991. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.08.013
[10] S. M. Jakus, A. Shapiro and C. D. Hall, “Biologic and Synthetic Graft Use in Pelvic Surgery: A Review,” Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, Vol. 63, No. 4, 2008, pp. 253-266. doi:10.1097/OGX.0b013e318166fb44
[11] F. Zheng, Y. Lin, E. Verbeken, F. Claerhout, M. Fastrez and J. Deprest, “Host Response after Reconstruction of Abdominal Wall Defects with Porcine Dermal Collagen in a Rat Model,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 191, No. 6, 2004, pp. 1961-1970. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.091
[12] F. Zheng, E. Verbeken, D. de Ridder and J. Deprest, “Improved Surgical Outcome by Modification of Porcine Dermal Collagen Implant in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in Rats,” Neurourology and Urodynamics, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2005, pp. 362-368. doi:10.1002/nau.20148
[13] D. Altman, B. Anzen, S. Brismar, A. Lopez and J. Zetterstr?m, “Long-Term Outcome of Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy Using Xenograft Compared with Synthetic Mesh,” Urology, Vol. 67, No. 4, 2006, pp. 719-724. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.034
[14] L. H. Quiroz, R. E. Gutman, S. Shippey, G. W. Cundiff, T. Sanses and V. L. Handa, “Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: Anatomic Outcomes and Complications with Pelvicol, Autologous and Synthetic Graft Materials,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 198, No. 5, 2008, pp. 557.e1-e5.
[15] F. Claerhout, D. De Ridder, D. Van Beckevoort, G. Coremans, J. Veldman and J. Deprest, “Sacrocolpopexy Using Xenogenic Acellular Collagen in Patients at Increased Risk for Graft-Related Complications,” Neurourology and Urodynamics, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2010, pp. 563-567.
[16] L. M. Pierce, M. A. Grunlan, Y. Hou, S. S. Baumann, T. J. Kuehl and T. W. Muir, “Biomechanical Properties of Synthetic and Biologic Graft Materials Following LongTerm Implantation in the Rabbit Abdomen and Vagina,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 200, No. 5, 2009, pp. 549.e1-e8.
[17] F. Claerhout, G. Verbist, E. Verbeken, M. Konstantinovic, D. De Ridder and J. Deprest, “Fate of Collagen-Based Implants Used in Pelvic Floor Surgery: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study in a Rabbit Model,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 198, No. 1, 2008, pp. 94.e1-e6.
[18] S. Gandhi, L. M. Kubba, Y. Abramov, S. M. Botros, R. P. Goldberg and P. K. Sand, “Histopathologic Changes of Porcine Dermis Xenografts for Transvaginal Suburethral Slings,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 192, No. 5, 2005, pp. 1643-1648. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.044
[19] J. T. Goh, “Biomechanical and Biochemical Assessments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2003, pp. 391-394. doi:10.1097/00001703-200310000-00007
[20] L. Lei, Y. Song and R. Chen, “Biomechanical Properties of Prolapsed Vaginal Tissue in Preand Postmenopausal Women,” International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Vol. 18, No. 6, 2007, pp. 603-607. doi:10.1007/s00192-006-0214-7
[21] M. Cosson, E. Lambaudie, M. Boukerrou, P. Lobry, G. Crépin and A. Ego, “A Biomechanical Study of the Strength of Vaginal Tissues. Results on 16 Post-Menopausal Patients Presenting with Genital Prolapse,” European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Vol. 112, No. 2, 2004, pp. 201-205. doi:10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00333-6

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.