Author/Authors :
Anjum، H. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan انجوم, هيرا , Bokhari، S. G. نويسنده Pet Centre,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan بخاري, شهلا گل , Khan، M. A. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan خان, محمد عارف , Awais، M. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan اويس, محمد , Mughal، Z. U. نويسنده Pet Centre,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan موغال, ضياء الله , Shahzad، H. K. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan شهزاد, حافظ كاشف , Ijaz، F. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan ايجاز, فرح , Siddiqui، M. I. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan صديقي, مظهر اقبال , Khan، I. U. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan خان, امداد الله , Chaudhry، A. S. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan چودري, عايشه صفدر , Akhtar، R. نويسنده Department of Pathology,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan اختر, راحله , Aslam، S. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan اسلم, صدف , Akbar، H. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan اكبر, حميد , Asif، M. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan آصف, محمد , Maan، M. K. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan معان, محمد كاشف , Khan، M.A. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan خان, ممتاز علي , Noor، A. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan نور, عامر , Khan، W. A. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan خان, واجد علي , Ullah، A. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan الله, عظمت , Hayat، M. A. نويسنده Department of Clinical Medicine & Surgery,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,Lahore,Pakistan حيات, محمد عابد
Abstract :
In this study, efficacy of two hernia mesh implants viz. conventional Prolene and a novel ProleneVicryl composite mesh was assessed for experimental ventral hernia repair in dogs. Twelve healthy mongrel dogs were selected and randomly divided into three groups, A, Band C (n=4). In all groups, an experimental laparotomy was performed; thereafter, the posterior rectus sheath and peritoneum were sutured together, while, a 5 × 5 cm defect was created in the rectus muscle belly and anterior rectus sheath. For sublay hernioplasty, the hernia mesh (Prolene: group A; ProleneVicryl composite mesh: group B), was implanted over the posterior rectus sheath. In group C (control), mesh was not implanted; instead the laparotomy incision was closed after a herniorrhaphy. Postoperative pain, mesh shrinkage and adhesion formation were assessed as short term complications. Postoperatively, pain at surgical site was significantly less (P0.001) in group B (composite mesh); mesh shrinkage was also significantly less in group B (21.42%, P0.05) than in group A (Prolene mesh shrinkage: 58.18%). Group B (composite mesh) also depicted less than 25% adhesions (Mean ± SE: 0.75 ± 0.50 scores, P≤0.013) when assessed on the basis of a Quantitative Modified Diamond scale; a Qualitative Adhesion Tenacity scale also depicted either no adhesions (n=2), or, only flimsy adhesions (n=2) in group B (composite mesh), in contrast to group A (Prolene), which manifested greater adhesion formation and presence of dense adhesions requiring blunt dissection. Conclusively, the ProleneVicryl composite mesh proved superior to the Prolene mesh regarding lesser mesh contraction, fewer adhesions and no shortterm followup complications.
