Abstract
Purpose: Deficiencies of the abdominal wall can be the a result of infection, surgery, trauma, or primary herniation. For abdominal wall reconstruction, synthetic materials have been shown to provide a better long-term success rate than primary fascial repair. But, synthetic materials cannot elicit angiogenesis or produce growth factor and are therefore plagued by an inability to clear infection. As a result of the inherent drawbacks of synthetic, significant effort has been spent on the identification of new bioprosthetic materials. The aim of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a synthetic material (PROCEED$^{(R)}$) and an ADM ($SureDerm^{TM}$) to repair abdominal wall defects in a rabbit models. Methods: We measured the tensile strength of the $SureDerm^{TM}$ and PROCEED$^{(R)}$ by a Tension meter (Instron 4482). 16 Rabbit models were assigned to this study for abdominal wall reconstruction. Abdominal defect of 8 rabbits were reconstructed by PROCEED$^{(R)}$ and the rest were reconstructed by $SureDerm^{TM}$. We assessed gross and histologic examinations for the reconstructed abdominal wall. Results: The tensile strength of $SureDerm^{TM}$ and Gore Tex$^{(R)}$ is $14.64{\pm}0.51Mpa$, $8.54{\pm}0.45Mpa$. PROCEED$^{(R)}$ was estimated above the limits of measurement. Inflammatory reaction of PROCEED$^{(R)}$ persisted for 32weeks, but $SureDerm^{TM}$ decreased after 16weeks. Vascular ingrowth into the $SureDerm^{TM}$ was seen after 32 weeks. The basement membrane of $SureDerm^{TM}$ changed into a form of pseudoperitoneum. In PROCEED$^{(R)}$, it seemed like pseudoepithelial lining was made from the fibrosis around the mesh. Conclusion: In our study, the $SureDerm^{TM}$ not only have less inflammatory reaction and presented more angiogenesis than the PROCEED$^{(R)}$, but also have pseudoperitoneum formation. It is expected that $SureDerm^{TM}$ is useful for abdominal wall reconstruction. However, a long-term study of its usage consequences are thought to be needed.
