• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search the SAGES Site
    • Guidelines Search
    • Video Search
    • Search Images
    • Search Abstracts
  • OWLS/FLS
  • Login
You are here: Home / Abstracts / The Impact of Different Commercially Available Antiadhesive Barriers in Experimental Ipom Hernia Repair Using a Polypropylene Mesh

The Impact of Different Commercially Available Antiadhesive Barriers in Experimental Ipom Hernia Repair Using a Polypropylene Mesh

Background:
Intraperitoneal onlay mesh plastic technique (IPOM) is a common technique for ventral hernia repair. Adhesion formation, seroma formation, impared functionality of the abdominal wall, and chronic pain are frequently observed complications. Adhesions are probably the most important side effect and can be evoked by meshes as well as fixation devices. Different mesh concepts for adhesion prevention or reduction have been developed including coated meshes and single antiadhesive barriers (sAB) for individual coating of meshes.
Combining one type of mesh with different sAB (providing a barrier between implant and viscera until the mesh is covered by neomesothelium) formed the rationale to conduct this study and ruled out a possible impact of different mesh materials. sAB were fixed to the mesh in a new atraumatic way by the use of fibrin sealant (FS).
Methods:
32 rats were operated in open IPOM technique (n=8 per group). One mesh per animal (2×2 cm) was fixed with 4 non-resorbable sutures. An antiadhesive barrier of 2.5 x 2.5 cm was fixed with fibrin sealant (4 I.U.) to the visceral side of the implant. A macroporous polypropylene mesh was used. The antiadhesive layers tested were SurgiWrapâ, Prevadhâ and Seprafilmâ. All sAB are fully degradable in 2 to 8 weeks. Observation period was 30 days, mesh with sutures only served as control group.
Adhesion formation, tissue integration, seroma formation, inflammation and vascularisation were evaluated. Adhesions were scored qualitatively using the Vandendael score and quantitatively by evaluating the percental adhesion-coverage of mesh surface. Histology was performed.
Results:
When compared to the control group prevadh group showed a significant reduction of adhesion formation verified by the Vandendael score as well as by the percentage of mesh surface covered by adhesions. Adhesion formation was significantly reduced in the Seprafilm group compared to the control group. No difference concerning adhesion formation was found between SurgiWrap and control group. No seroma formation or inflammation was detected in any group. Tissue integration of the mesh was reduced in Prevadh and Seprafilm group, SurgiWrap and control group showed full mesh integration. There is a highly positive correlation between Vandendael score and percental adhesion area of mesh surface (r=0.7).
Conclusion:
In our opinion FS is an excellent agent for sAB fixation. The new method of atraumatic fixation is simple and effective. Sealed Prevadhâ and Seprafilmâ are potent agents for the reduction of adhesion formation. A potential relationship between effective adhesion prevention and impaired tissue integration of the implant was observed demanding further research. A poor integration of the mesh into the abdominal wall may influence mesh function.


Session: Poster

Program Number: P464

View Poster

878


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons