Bioerosion of Synthetic Sling Explants
Source abstract
Abstract
This study was performed to investigate the changes over time in polypropylene (PP) mesh explants from women with stress urinary incontinence originally treated with a midurethral PP sling. Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, 10 PP explants removed for pain or obstructive symptoms between January and June 2016 were analyzed through various techniques to determine the degradation of the material in vivo. Exclusion criteria were exposed or infected mesh sling or sling in place for less than six months. One pristine control was studied for comparison. The explant samples were analyzed with scanning electron microscopy to visualize the surface defects as well as infrared spectroscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to determine if the degradation was oxidative in nature. The results show qualitative and quantitative bioerosion over the surface of the explant samples and an increase in the content of oxygen pointing toward oxidative degradation occurring in vivo.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Pelvic floor disorders treatments · Hernia repair and management · Anorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080, United States
Department of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080, United States
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080, United States
Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75204, United States
Funding
Division of Chemistry · Welch Foundation · Division of Materials Research
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s00192-011-1476-210.1007/s00192-011-1476-2 ↗
2. 10.1007/s00192-009-1021-810.1007/s00192-009-1021-8 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.09.01510.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.09.015 ↗
4. 10.1007/s00192-012-1718-y10.1007/s00192-012-1718-y ↗
5. Cacciari I. · Appl. Environ. Microbiol. · 1993 · 59 · 369510.1128/aem.59.11.3695-3700.1993 ↗
6. 10.1080/11024159875000515610.1080/110241598750005156 ↗
7. 10.1002/jbm.b.3076410.1002/jbm.b.30764 ↗
8. 10.5271/sjweh.234710.5271/sjweh.2347 ↗
9. 10.1002/jbm.82010061110.1002/jbm.820100611 ↗
10. Tzartzeva K. R. · Neurourol. Urodyn. · 2014 · 33 · 820
11. Dillon B. E. · Can. J. Urol. · 2012 · 19 · 6424
12. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.04510.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.045 ↗
13. 10.1586/17434440.4.5.67510.1586/17434440.4.5.675 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.06610.1016/j.juro.2010.11.066 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.urology.2012.07.09810.1016/j.urology.2012.07.098 ↗
16. Cozad M. J. · J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. · 2010 · 94 · 45510.1002/jbm.b.31675 ↗
17. 10.1007/s00192-016-3131-410.1007/s00192-016-3131-4 ↗
18. Rasband, W. S.ImageJ.National Institutes of Health:Bethesda, MD, 1997.
19. 10.1007/s10856-013-4872-y10.1007/s10856-013-4872-y ↗
20. 10.1016/S0146-2776(83)80027-510.1016/S0146-2776(83)80027-5 ↗
21. Pham-Huy L. A. · Int. J. Biomed Sci. · 2008 · 4 · 8910.59566/IJBS.2008.4089 ↗
22. 10.1186/1477-3163-5-1410.1186/1477-3163-5-14 ↗
23. 10.1182/blood.V98.4.123110.1182/blood.V98.4.1231 ↗
24. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02260.x10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02260.x ↗
25. 10.1007/s10029010001710.1007/s100290100017 ↗
26. 10.1007/s10029010001910.1007/s100290100019 ↗
27. 10.5489/cuaj.1010410.5489/cuaj.10104 ↗
28. 10.1007/s00192-011-1399-y10.1007/s00192-011-1399-y ↗
29. Debodinance P. · J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. (Paris). · 2002 · 31 · 527
30. 10.1007/s10029010000110.1007/s100290100001 ↗