Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: first results with this new technology on neoplasms of the head and neck.

Intensity-modulated beam radiotherapy (IMRT) delivers a highly conformal, three-dimensional (3-D) distribution of radiation doses that is not possible with conventional methods. When administered to patients with head and neck tumors, IMRT allows for the treatment of multiple targets with different doses, while simultaneously minimizing radiation to uninvolved critical structures such as the parotid glands, optic chiasm, and mandible. With 3-D computerized dose optimization, IMRT is a vast improvement over the customary trial-and-error method of treatment planning. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of the first 28 head and neck patients at our institution who were treated with IMRT. All had head and neck neoplasms, including squamous cell carcinoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, paraganglioma, and angiofibroma. Total radiation doses ranged from 1,400 to 7,100 cGy, and daily doses ranged from 150 to 400 cGy/day. A quality assurance system ensured that computer-generated dosimetry matched film dosimetry in all cases. For midline tumors, this system allowed us to decrease the dose to the parotid glands to less than 3,000 cGy. The incidence of acute toxicity was drastically lower than that seen with conventional radiotherapy delivery to similar sites. This is the first report of the application of IMRT strictly to head and neck neoplasms. We discuss the indications, technique, and initial results of this promising new technology. We also introduce the concept of the Simultaneous Modulated Accelerated Radiation Therapy boost technique, which has several advantages over other altered fractionation schemes.

Histologic evaluation of absorbable and non-absorbable barrier coated mesh secured to the peritoneum with fibrin sealant in a New Zealand white rabbit model.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the histologic response to fibrin sealant (FS) as an alternative fixation method for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: One non-absorbable barrier mesh (Composix™) and three absorbable barrier meshes (Sepramesh™, Proceed™, and Parietex™ Composite) were used for the study, with uncoated macroporous polypropylene mesh (ProLite Ultra™) as the control. Three methods of fixation were used: #0-polypropylene suture + FS (ARTISS™, Baxter Healthcare Corp.), FS alone (ARTISS™), or tacks alone (n = 10 for each group). Two pieces of mesh (of dimensions 4 × 4-cm) were secured intraperitoneally in 75 New Zealand white rabbits. After 8 weeks, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained specimens were evaluated for host tissue response. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was determined using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test. RESULTS: Composix™ with FS only showed significantly greater cellular infiltration than with suture + FS (P = 0.0007), Proceed™ with FS only had significantly greater neovascularization than with suture + FS (P = 0.0172), and ProLite Ultra™ with suture + FS had significantly greater neovascularization than with tacks only (P = 0.046). Differences due to mesh type showed that Composix™ exhibited less extensive cellular infiltration (P ≤ 0.0032), extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, and neovascularization, and demonstrated less inflammatory cells and more fibroblasts compared to the other meshes (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FS did not have a significant histologic effect compared to tacks when utilized for the fixation of mesh to the peritoneum of New Zealand White rabbits. However, the mesh type did have a significant histologic effect. The permanent barrier mesh (Composix™) was associated with less histologic incorporation than absorbable barrier and macroporous meshes, as evidenced by lower levels of cellular infiltration, ECM deposition, and neovascularization, independent of the fixation method used.

Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair.

PURPOSE: Biologic meshes have unique physical properties as a result of manufacturing techniques such as decellularization, crosslinking, and sterilization. The purpose of this study is to directly compare the biocompatibility profiles of five different biologic meshes, AlloDerm(®) (non-crosslinked human dermal matrix), PeriGuard(®) (crosslinked bovine pericardium), Permacol(®) (crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), Strattice(®) (non-crosslinked porcine dermal matrix), and Veritas(®) (non-crosslinked bovine pericardium), using a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. METHODS: Full-thickness fascial defects were created in 20 Yucatan minipigs and repaired with the retromuscular placement of biologic mesh 3 weeks later. Animals were euthanized at 1 month and the repair sites were subjected to tensile testing and histologic analysis. Samples of unimplanted (de novo) meshes and native porcine abdominal wall were also analyzed for their mechanical properties. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the biomechanical characteristics between any of the mesh-repaired sites at 1 month postimplantation or between the native porcine abdominal wall without implanted mesh and the mesh-repaired sites (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Histologically, non-crosslinked materials exhibited greater cellular infiltration, extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, and neovascularization compared to crosslinked meshes. CONCLUSIONS: While crosslinking differentiates biologic meshes with regard to cellular infiltration, ECM deposition, scaffold degradation, and neovascularization, the integrity and strength of the repair site at 1 month is not significantly impacted by crosslinking or by the de novo strength/stiffness of the mesh.

Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of a novel macroporous polytetrafluoroethylene knit mesh compared to lightweight and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the biocompatibility of heavyweight polypropylene (HWPP), lightweight polypropylene (LWPP), and monofilament knit polytetrafluoroethylene (mkPTFE) mesh by comparing biomechanics and histologic response at 1, 3, and 5 months in a porcine model of incisional hernia repair. METHODS: Bilateral full-thickness abdominal wall defects measuring 4 cm in length were created in 27 Yucatan minipigs. Twenty-one days after hernia creation, animals underwent bilateral preperitoneal ventral hernia repair with 8 × 10 cm pieces of mesh. Repairs were randomized to Bard(®)Mesh (HWPP, Bard/Davol, http://www.davol.com), ULTRAPRO(®) (LWPP, Ethicon, http://www.ethicon.com), and GORE(®)INFINIT Mesh (mkPTFE, Gore & Associates, http://www.gore.com). Nine animals were sacrificed at each timepoint (1, 3, and 5 months). At harvest, a 3 × 4 cm sample of mesh and incorporated tissue was taken from the center of the implant site and subjected to uniaxial tensile testing at a rate of 0.42 mm/s. The maximum force (N) and tensile strength (N/cm) were measured with a tensiometer, and stiffness (N/mm) was calculated from the slope of the force-versus-displacement curve. Adjacent sections of tissue were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and analyzed for inflammation, fibrosis, and tissue ingrowth. Data are reported as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was determined using a two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-test. RESULTS: No significant difference in maximum force was detected between meshes at any of the time points (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). However, for each mesh type, the maximum strength at 5 months was significantly lower than that at 1 month (P < 0.05). No significant difference in stiffness was detected between the mesh types or between timepoints (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). No significant differences with regard to inflammation, fibrosis, or tissue ingrowth were detected between mesh types at any time point (P > 0.09 for all comparisons). However, over time, inflammation decreased significantly for all mesh types (P < 0.001) and tissue ingrowth reached a slight peak between 1 and 3 months (P = 0.001) but did not significantly change thereafter (P > 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tensile strength of mesh in the abdominal wall decreased over time for HWPP, LWPP, and mkPTFE mesh materials alike. This trend may actually reflect inability to adequately grip specimens at later time points rather than any mesh-specific trend. Histologically, inflammation decreased with time (P = 0.000), and tissue ingrowth increased (P = 0.019) for all meshes. No specific trends were observed between the polypropylene meshes and the monofilament knit PTFE, suggesting that this novel construction may be a suitable alternative to existing polypropylene meshes.