Comparison of pathomorphologic properties of non-resorbable and partially resorbable implants for reconstructive surgery of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: an animal model study

Introduction. It is well-known that the use of transvaginal mesh implants is not devoid of specific complications that meaningfully impair the quality of life of female patients. The volume of permanent material used has been shown to correlate closely with the risk of implant-associated complications. Thus, there is a need to develop a new generation of implants that retain the advantages of a permanent mesh implant but with minimal risk of implant-associated complications. Meanwhile, there are insufficient data on the organism's response to this type of synthetic implant.

Objective. To compare the histological changes in the soft tissues of the rabbit anterior abdominal wall in the implantation zone of the new generation partially resorbable implant and non-absorbable polypropylene mesh implant on the animal model.

Materials & methods. We have previously developed a partially resorbable ligature delivery system for axial fixation of pelvic floor structures, performed technical analysis, and compared biomechanical and pathomorphological properties after implantation in an animal model experiment. The present study was conducted on 39 male rabbits of Chinchilla breed, randomised into three groups according to the type of implanted material: a partially resorbable ligature delivery system Axilen and Axilen Rapid [Lintex, LLC], and a non-resorbable polypropylene mesh implant Urosling. After the rabbits were removed from the experiment, the obtained biomaterial was subjected to histological study.

Results. In the group with partially resorbable implants Axilen and Axilen Rapid, less inflammation and better tissue integration were observed compared to the polypropylene implant Urosling. This indicates a potential reduction in the risk of postoperative complications and an improvement in the quality of life for patients.

Conclusion. The results of the experimental study confirm the advantages of using partially resorbable implants over traditional polypropylene meshes in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. However, further research is needed to confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of the new generation of implants.

1. Ugianskiene A, Davila GW, Su TH; FIGO Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Committee. FIGO review of statements on use of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;147(2):147-155. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12932

2. Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association. Joint position statement on the management of mesh-related complications for the FPMRS specialist. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(4):679-694. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04248-x

3. Deng T, Liao B, Luo D, Shen H, Wang K. Risk factors for mesh erosion after female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2016;117(2):323-343. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13158

4. Nolfi AL, Brown BN, Liang R, Palcsey SL, Bonidie MJ, Abramowitch SD, Moalli PA. Host response to synthetic mesh in women with mesh complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(2):206.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.008

5. Mangir N, Aldemir Dikici B, Chapple CR, MacNeil S. Landmarks in vaginal mesh development: polypropylene mesh for treatment of SUI and POP. Nat ReV Urol. 2019;16(11):675-689. DOI: 10.1038/s41585-019-0230-2

6. Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Harrell AG, Newcomb W, Norton JH, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. Immunohistochemical analysis of host reaction to heavyweight-, reduced-weight-, and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-based meshes after short- and long-term intraabdominal implantations. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(4):1070-1076. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9737-3

7. Liang R, Abramowitch S, Knight K, Palcsey S, Nolfi A, Feola A, Stein S, Moalli PA. Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG. 2013;120(2):233-243. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12085

8. Shkarupa D.D., Shakhaliev R.A., Shulgin A.S., Filipenko T.S., Kubin N.D., Suchkov D.A., Shkarupa O.A. New-generation synthetic implants for the surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: design and testing. Urology Herald. 2022;10(4):109-119. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2022-10-4-109-119

9. Shkarupa D.D., Shakhaliev R.A., Shulgin A.S., Filipenko T.S., Kubin N.D., Labetov I.A., Suchkov D.A. Сomparison of biomechanical properties of non-absorbable and partially absorbable mesh implants used in surgery for urinary incontinence and genital prolapse: experimental study. Urology Herald. 2023;11(1):116-124. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2023-11-1-116-124

10. Gunatillake PA, Adhikari R. Biodegradable synthetic polymers for tissue engineering. Eur Cell Mater. 2003;5:1-16; discussion 16. DOI: 10.22203/ecm.v005a01

11. Ray JA, Doddi N, Regula D, Williams JA, Melveger A. Polydioxanone (PDS), a novel monofilament synthetic absorbable suture. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1981;153(4):497-507. PMID: 6792722.

12. Hympanova L, Mori da Cunha MGMC, Rynkevic R, Wach RA, Olejnik AK, Dankers PYW, Arts B, Mes T, Bosman AW, Albersen M, Deprest J. Experimental reconstruction of an abdominal wall defect with electrospun polycaprolactone-ureidopyrimidinone mesh conserves compliance yet may have insufficient strength. J Mech BehaV Biomed Mater. 2018;88:431-441. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.026

13. Eisenakh IA, Bondarev OI, Mozes VG, Lapii GA, Lushnikova EL. Features of In Vitro Degradation and Physical Properties of a Biopolymer and In Vivo Tissue Reactions in Comparison with Polypropylene. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2020;170(1):88-92. DOI: 10.1007/s10517-020-05010-5

14. Lu Y, Dong S, Zhang P, Liu X, Wang X. Preparation of a polylactic acid knitting mesh for pelvic floor repair and in vivo evaluation. J Mech BehaV Biomed Mater. 2017;74:204-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.034

15. Roman S, Urbánková I, Callewaert G, Lesage F, Hillary C, Osman NI, Chapple CR, Deprest J, MacNeil S. Evaluating Alternative Materials for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Comparison of the In Vivo Response to Meshes Implanted in Rabbits. J Urol. 2016;196(1):261-269. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.067

16. Chen CC, Ridgeway B, Paraiso MF. Biologic grafts and synthetic meshes in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(2):383-411. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31804b184c