Experimental study regarding the biocompatibility test of the Prolene (polypropylene abdominal mesh) product
Vol. 57 No. 1, 2016
ROMANIAN JOURNAL of MORPHOLOGY and EMBRYOLOGY
Elena-Violeta Radu, Ionut-Simion Coman, Oana-Ilona David, Stefan-Iulian Bedereag, Ruxandra-Diana Sinescu, Valentin-Titus Grigorean, Mihai Popescu, Cristian-Dumitru Lupascu, Nicolae-Dan Straja, Ioan-Petre Florescu
The polypropylene mesh, although is one of the most used prosthetic biomaterials for abdominal wall defects, proved not to be completely inert, generating from precocious foreign body inflammatory reactions (varying by individual reactivity, the amount of used material and its structure), to late complications such as chronic infections, stercoral fistulae or mesh migration. The present paper was aimed at studying the behavior of implants of this material in three different areas of the body of experimental animals, as follows: intramuscular, intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal. The observation time was 21 days and 90 days. We observed foreign body reactions induced locally by the mesh that remains temporary, generating a moderate number of macrophages and foreign body giant cells. The material did not systemically affect the healing and the scaring of the surgical wounds, but in all three implant areas, the polypropylene mesh generated locally a fibrous proliferation reaction of neoformation tissue, which wrapped and secured the implanted product on all surfaces.
Corresponding author: Ruxandra-Diana Sinescu, MD, PhD; e-mail: ruxandrasinescu@gmail.com
Download PDF Experimental study regarding the biocompatibility test of the Prolene (polypropylene abdominal mesh) product PDF
Download coverDownload contents
Journal archive
- vol. 66 no. 2, 2025
- vol. 66 no. 1, 2025
- vol. 65 no. 4, 2024
- vol. 65 no. 3, 2024
- vol. 65 no. 2, 2024
- vol. 65 no. 1, 2024
- vol. 64 no. 4, 2023
- vol. 64 no. 3, 2023
- vol. 64 no. 2, 2023
- vol. 64 no. 1, 2023
- vol. 63 no. 4, 2022
- vol. 63 no. 3, 2022
- vol. 63 no. 2, 2022
- vol. 63 no. 1, 2022
- vol. 62 no. 4, 2021
- vol. 62 no. 3, 2021
- vol. 62 no. 2, 2021
- vol. 62 no. 1, 2021
- vol. 61 no. 4, 2020
- vol. 61 no. 3, 2020
- vol. 61 no. 2, 2020
- vol. 61 no. 1, 2020
- vol. 60 no. 4, 2019
- vol. 60 no. 3, 2019
- vol. 60 no. 2, 2019
- vol. 60 no. 1, 2019
- vol. 59 no. 4, 2018
- vol. 59 no. 3, 2018
- vol. 59 no. 2, 2018
- vol. 59 no. 1, 2018
- vol. 58 no. 4, 2017
- vol. 58 no. 3, 2017
- vol. 58 no. 2, 2017
- vol. 58 no. 1, 2017
- vol. 57 no. 4, 2016
- vol. 57 no. 3, 2016
- vol. 57 no. 2 Suppl., 2016
- vol. 57 no. 2, 2016
- vol. 57 no. 1, 2016
- vol. 56 no. 4, 2015
- vol. 56 no. 3, 2015
- vol. 56 no. 2 Suppl., 2015
- vol. 56 no. 2, 2015
- vol. 56 no. 1, 2015
- vol. 55 no. 4, 2014
- vol. 55 no. 3 Suppl., 2014
- vol. 55 no. 3, 2014
- vol. 55 no. 2 Suppl., 2014
- vol. 55 no. 2, 2014
- vol. 55 no. 1, 2014
- vol. 54 no. 4, 2013
- vol. 54 no. 3 Suppl., 2013
- vol. 54 no. 3, 2013
- vol. 54 no. 2, 2013
- vol. 54 no. 1, 2013
- vol. 53 no. 4, 2012
- vol. 53 no. 3 Suppl., 2012
- vol. 53 no. 3, 2012
- vol. 53 no. 2, 2012
- vol. 53 no. 1, 2012
- vol. 52 no. 4, 2011
- vol. 52 no. 3 Suppl., 2011
- vol. 52 no. 3, 2011
- vol. 52 no. 2, 2011
- vol. 52 no. 1 Suppl., 2011
- vol. 52 no. 1, 2011
- vol. 51 no. 4, 2010
- vol. 51 no. 3, 2010
- vol. 51 no. 2, 2010
- vol. 51 no. 1, 2010
- vol. 50 no. 4, 2009
- vol. 50 no. 3, 2009
- vol. 50 no. 2, 2009
- vol. 50 no. 1, 2009
- vol. 49 no. 4, 2008
- vol. 49 no. 3, 2008
- vol. 49 no. 2, 2008
- vol. 49 no. 1, 2008
- vol. 48 no. 4, 2007
- vol. 48 no. 3, 2007
- vol. 48 no. 2, 2007
- vol. 48 no. 1, 2007
- vol. 47 no. 4, 2006
- vol. 47 no. 3, 2006
- vol. 47 no. 2, 2006
- vol. 47 no. 1, 2006
- vol. 46 no. 4, 2005
- vol. 46 no. 3, 2005
- vol. 46 no. 2, 2005
- vol. 46 no. 1, 2005
- vol. 45 no. CI, 2004
