Comparative efficacy of Prolene and Prolene-Vicryl composite mesh for experimental ventral hernia repair in dogs

Document Type: Full paper (Original article)

Authors

1 Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan

2 Pet Centre, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan

3 Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan

4 Ph.D. Scholar, Pet Centre, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan

5 Department of Pathology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan

Abstract

In this study, efficacy of two hernia mesh implants viz. conventional Prolene and a novel Prolene-Vicryl composite mesh was assessed for experimental ventral hernia repair in dogs. Twelve healthy mongrel dogs were selected and randomly divided into three groups, A, Band C (n=4). In all groups, an experimental laparotomy was performed; thereafter, the posterior rectus sheath and peritoneum were sutured together, while, a 5 × 5 cm defect was created in the rectus muscle belly and anterior rectus sheath. For sublay hernioplasty, the hernia mesh (Prolene: group A; Prolene-Vicryl composite mesh: group B), was implanted over the posterior rectus sheath. In group C (control), mesh was not implanted; instead the laparotomy incision was closed after a herniorrhaphy. Post-operative pain, mesh shrinkage and adhesion formation were assessed as short term complications. Post-operatively, pain at surgical site was significantly less (P<0.001) in group B (composite mesh); mesh shrinkage was also significantly less in group B (21.42%, P<0.05) than in group A (Prolene mesh shrinkage: 58.18%). Group B (composite mesh) also depicted less than 25% adhesions (Mean ± SE: 0.75 ± 0.50 scores, P≤0.013) when assessed on the basis of a Quantitative Modified Diamond scale; a Qualitative Adhesion Tenacity scale also depicted either no adhesions (n=2), or, only flimsy adhesions (n=2) in group B (composite mesh), in contrast to group A (Prolene), which manifested greater adhesion formation and presence of dense adhesions requiring blunt dissection. Conclusively, the Prolene-Vicryl composite mesh proved superior to the Prolene mesh regarding lesser mesh contraction, fewer adhesions and no short-term follow-up complications.

Keywords