[Use of a composite prosthesis (PL-PU99) versus a biological prosthesis (Surgisis) in an experimental model of temporary abdominal closure]. / Estudio experimental comparativo entre una prótesis compuesta (PL-PU99) y una prótesis biológica (Surgisis) en el cierre temporal abdominal.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In some diseases of peritoneal origin, temporary closure of the abdominal cavity is required to avoid compartmental syndrome. This allows normal intra-abdominal pressure to be maintained and the fascial edges to be preserved for subsequent definitive closure. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Defects (7 x 4 cm) were created in the anterior abdominal wall of New Zealand white rabbits and were repaired using an oval-shaped patch of a prosthesis designed by our team (PL-PU99) or a prosthesis of biological origin (Surgisis) of similar dimensions to the defects. The biomaterials were fixed to the cut edges of the wall by 2 polypropylene running sutures interrupted only at the corners, leaving the patch in contact with the atmosphere. Fourteen days after implantation, prosthesis/anchorage tissue specimens were taken for light and scanning electron microscopy, morphometric measurements and immunohistochemical macrophage identification (using the RAM-11 antibody). RESULTS: There were no cases of mortality or implant rejection. Small areas of loose adhesions were observed on some implants (covering 0.31 +/- 0.03% of the PL-PU99 implants and 31.60 +/- 7.35% of Surgisis). The neoperitoneum induced by both implant types was homogenous and well organized, with thicknesses of 427.60 +/- 8.38 microm (PL-PU99) and 171.99 +/- 18.70 microm (Surgisis). No significant differences were observed in terms of the macrophage reaction induced (PL-PU99 19.76 +/- 1.59%; Surgisis 21.07 +/- 8.93% macrophages). CONCLUSIONS: a) The PL-PU99 prosthesis provoked fewer adhesions and generated a thicker neoperitoneum. b) Both prostheses would probably be suitable for temporary closure of the abdominal cavity.