Original article                                                                              

 UDC: 616.6-089.843

 doi: 10.5633/amm.2014.0401

 

 

 

 

 

Comparative analysis of graft structure retraction

and tissue integration of urogynecology synthetic

grafts - an experimental study

 

Milan Potić

 

Clinic of Urology, Clinical Center Niš, Serbia

 

Although many synthetic grafts have been considered chemically and physically inert, stabile and non-immunogenic, none of them is actually bioinert. Inflammatory reaction is necessary for the reparation process and collagen deposition, however, it can lead to graft retraction, erosion and adhesions. The aim of this experimental study was to analyze and compare the influence of graft structure on both retraction and tissue integration into urogynecology synthetic grafts.

Six different urogynecology synthetic graft types, after scan electronic microscope analysis, were used for the reparation of abdominal wall defect in Wister rats. After three and six weeks the influence of graft structure on tissue integration and retraction was compared.

Largest pores were recorded in the multifilament with polyglactine group (1.06 mm²) compared to the almost ten times smaller pores in the monofilament collagen coated group (0.08 mm²). Prominent retraction was recorded for the titanium coated polypropylene after six weeks (18.78%) compared to the multifilament polypropylene (10.88%). Tissue integration into monofilament grafts presented the steady rate with maximum of up to 25.3% for the low weight polypropylene after six weeks. Retraction rates were inversely dependent on graft filament thickness after six weeks. Filament thickness influenced significantly the tissue integration.

Retraction of urogynecology synthetic grafts was 10.88-18.78%. Tissue inte-gration into urogynecology synthetic grafts was 18-25.3%. Retraction rates and tissue integration were inversely dependent on the graft filament thickness.  

Key words: tissue integration, retraction, synthetic grafts. Acta Medica Medianae 2014;53(4):5-9.

 

Key words: tissue integration, retraction, synthetic grafts