Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17874025›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction2008

Tissue resistance of the tension-free procedure: what about healing?

M Boukerrou, C Rubod, B Dedet, R Boodhum, M Nayama, M Cosson

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M BoukerrouPôle de chirurgie gynécologique, Clinique de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Néonatalogie, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, CHRU de Lille, 59037 Lille Cedex, France. m-boukerrou@chru-lille.fr
C Rubod
B Dedet
R Boodhum
M Nayama
M Cosson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of our work was to objectify and quantify the mechanical benefits of healing with regards to tearing meshes off of tissues and maximal resistance after cicatrization. In vivo, we tested the mechanical gain in resistance by healing after implantation of a Prolene mesh. We measured the value of forces when traction was exerted until mobilization at different stages of cicatrization. Resistance increased progressively at the beginning of tissue inclusion. A maximal plateau was reached around the 25th day. It is important to understand the role of sustaining and reinforcement we hope tissue integration of the mesh will play. We can thus adapt procedures to have the best kinetics and maximal resistance of montages. Study of the kinetics and maximal plateau allows us to make the best clinical recommendations.

Indexed as

AnimalsCicatrixDisease Models, AnimalFemaleMaterials TestingPolypropylenesProsthesis DesignProsthesis ImplantationRatsRats, WistarStress, MechanicalSuburethral SlingsTensile StrengthUrinary Incontinence, StressUterine ProlapseWound HealingPolypropylenes

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.