ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011
Biologic hernia implants in experimental intraperitoneal onlay mesh plasty repair: the impact of proprietary collagen processing methods and fibrin sealant application on tissue integration.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- How do we evaluate the remodeling and regeneration of absorbable meshes? Multi-dimensional evaluation parameters from multi-species.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Review
- Regulatory science for hernia mesh: Current status and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2021Review
- Recurrent intestinal fistulation after porcine acellular dermal matrix reinforcement in enteric fistula takedown and simultaneous abdominal wall reconstruction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Biocellulose for Incisional Hernia Repair-An Experimental Pilot Study.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Biological implant-associated granulomatous inflammation resulting in secondary hypercalcemia and azotemia in a dog.Clinical case reports · 2018Article
- Abdominal wall reinforcement: biologic vs. degradable synthetic devices.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017Article
- Cell-coating affects tissue integration of synthetic and biologic meshes: comparative analysis of the onlay and underlay mesh positioning in rats.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) and scanning acoustic microscopy (SAM) for the assessment of hernia mesh integration: a comparison to standard histology in an experimental model.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2014Article
- Bioprosthetic tissue matrices in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2013Article
- Biologic meshes are not superior to synthetic meshes in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study with long-term follow-up evaluation.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Two cross-linked porcine dermal implants in a single patient undergoing hernia repair.BMJ case reports · 2013Article
- A clinically relevant in vivo model for the assessment of scaffold efficacy in abdominal wall reconstruction.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiologic implants have been recommended for reinforcement in routine and challenging hernia repair. However, experimental and clinical studies have reported adverse effects (e.g., slow implant integration and pronounced foreign body reaction). To evaluate the impact of different material processing methods (cross-linking vs. non-cross-linking of collagen) and implant design, four different biologic hernia implants were compared directly in experimental intraperitoneal onlay mesh plasty (IPOM). Tissue integration, shrinkage, and foreign body reaction were primary outcome parameters.
methodsIn this study, 48 Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to four treatment groups. Open IPOM repair was performed. One peritoneal defect per animal was covered with 2 × 2 cm patches of cross-linked or non-cross-linked implants including CollaMend (n = 12), Peripatch (n = 12), Surgisis (n = 12), and Tutomesh (n = 12). In half of the animals, fibrin sealant was applied for additional fixation and to cover sutures. The observation period was 60 days. The primary outcome parameters were implant integration, shrinkage, and foreign body reaction. Macroscopic and histologic assessments were performed.
resultsThe integration of implants was insufficient in all the groups. The implants could be detached easily from the underlying tissue, and the penetration of fibroblasts and vessels was limited to the perforations. Foreign body reaction was pronounced with CollaMend and Surgisis, leading to persistent granulomatous inflammation. Shrinkage was excessive with Surgisis, whereas Tutomesh and Peripatch yielded sufficient anti-adhesion and elicited no foreign body reaction.
conclusionAt 2 months, cross-linked and non-cross-linked biologic hernia implants were poorly integrated. Cross-linking led to a more pronounced foreign body reaction. Less inflammatory response may reduce local complications, but did not enhance implant integration in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.