Evaluating Alternative Materials for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Comparison of the In Vivo Response to Meshes Implanted in Rabbits

PurposeSerious complications can develop with the mesh implants used for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery. We evaluated 2 materials currently in clinical use and 2 alternative materials using a rabbit abdominal model to assess host response and biomechanical properties of the materials before and after implantation.Materials and MethodsPoly-L-lactic acid and polyurethane meshes were electrospun to be compared to commercially available polypropylene and polyvinylidene fluoride meshes. A total of 40 immunocompetent full-thickness abdominal wall defect rabbit models were used, including 8 in each of the poly-L-lactic acid, polyurethane, polyvinylidene fluoride and polypropylene experimental groups, and sham controls. Two 20 mm defects were created per animal and primarily repaired. The experimental groups then underwent onlay of each repair material while sham controls did not. Four rabbits per group were sacrificed at days 30 and 90. Abdominal wall specimens containing the defect with or without repair material were explanted to be assessed by histology (hematoxylin and eosin staining, and immunohistochemistry) and biomechanical testing at 30 and 90 days.ResultsAt 90 days of implantation tissues repaired with all 4 materials showed biomechanical properties without significant differences. However, polypropylene and polyvinylidene fluoride meshes demonstrated a sustained chronic inflammatory response profile by 90 days. In contrast, poly-L-lactic acid and polyurethane meshes integrated well into host tissues with a decreased inflammatory response, indicative of constructive remodeling.ConclusionsPoly-L-lactic acid and polyurethane alternative materials achieved better host integration in rabbit models than current synthetic repair materials.