Table 1.
Experimental groups of incisional hernia repair.
Figure 1.
Morphological analysis of the meshes. SEM images of (A) PET, (B) PET/C, and (C) DL meshes.
The transversal section of the DL mesh shows PET mat (bottom) and PET/C mat (top). Bars: 60 µm (A, B); 300 µm (C).
Table 2.
Fiber diameter, pore area, mechanical properties, and WCA of abdominal meshes.
Table 3.
Occurrence rate (%) of complications during post-operative period (PO) and day euthanized (E).
Figure 2.
Foreign body granuloma induced by the abdominal meshes.
Histological sections evidencing foreign body granuloma (Giemsa staining) of (A) Marlex30, (B) PET30, (C) PET/C, and (D) DL groups. (De) dermis, (Sc) subcutaneous tissue, and (FBG) foreign body granuloma. Bar = 220 µm.
Figure 3.
Foreign body giant cells covering nano- and microfibers of electrospun materials.
Histological sections (HE staining) evidencing FBGC in (A and D) PET30, (B and E) PET/C, and (C and F) DL groups. Bars: 25 µm (A–C); 10 µm (D–F).
Figure 4.
Garvey staining of foreign body granulomas.
Histological sections stained with Garvey’s staining (nuclei stained black/dark red, cytoplasmic elements stained red and collagen fibers stained light blue). (A,E) Marlex (B,F) PET (C,G) PET/C (D,H) DL. (De) dermis, (Sc) subcutaneous tissue, and (FBG) foreign body granuloma. Bars = 50 µm (A–D); 25 µm (E–H).
Figure 5.
Immunohistochemistry for CD68.
Immunohistochemical staining (CD68+) evidencing macrophages (Mac) and foreign body giant cells (FBGC) around a PET electrospun mat implanted in rat as abdominal mesh. Sections were incubated with a monoclonal antibody directed against CD68, clone KP1 (Zeta Corporation, CA), Histofine Simple Stain Max-Po Multi and 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride.
Figure 6.
Analysis of the foreign body granuloma induced by abdominal meshes.
(A) Granuloma thickness (mean ± standard deviation) and (B) absolute number of FBGC per section of granuloma (mean ± standard deviation) in animals implanted with different abdominal meshes. All experimental groups were compared to each other using Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests. For each chart, bars with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05.