ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2011
Evaluation of absorbable and permanent mesh fixation devices: adhesion formation and mechanical strength.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02233569 (COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF MESH AND FIXATION TECHNIQUE IN THE LAPAROSCOPIC OPERATIONS FOR VENTRAL AND INCISIONAL HERNIA - A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED MONOCENTER TRIAL.), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison of two different concepts of mesh and fixation technique in the laparoscopic operations for ventral and incisional hernia - a randomized controlled monocenter trial.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: updated Consensus Development Conference based guidelines [corrected].Surgical endoscopy · 2015Guideline
- Repair of primary and incisional hernias using composite mesh fixed with absorbable tackers: preliminary experience of a laparoscopic approach with a newly designed mesh in 29 cases.Updates in surgery · 2017Article
- Evaluation of a novel permanent capped helical coil fastener in a porcine model of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Evaluation of absorbable mesh fixation devices at various deployment angles.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Mesh & Prosthesis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015Article
- Development of a dynamic model for ventral hernia mesh repair.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2014Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of three fixation modalities for preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a 24-hour postoperative study in pigs.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2014Article
- Laparoscopic mechanical fixation devices: does firing angle matter?Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair is commonly performed with mesh prostheses; however, there is no standard for fixation devices used to secure mesh to the abdominal wall. This study is a functional comparison of novel, screw-type absorbable and permanent fixation devices with a traditional titanium fixation device.
methodsFifteen pigs each underwent the laparoscopic placement of two 11 × 14-cm mesh prostheses and were randomized for mesh fixation with either titanium spiral tacks (TS), absorbable screw-type fasteners (SF), or permanent screw-type fasteners (PF) (n = 10 mesh prostheses for each fixation group). Adhesions were assessed laparoscopically at 4 weeks. The fixation devices were also embedded in porcine abdominal rectus muscle for ex vivo mechanical testing along with partial thickness polypropylene suture (PR) as a control group (n = 40 for each group). Maximum pull-off forces were measured. All statistical tests were two-tailed, and a P-value < 0.05 was considered to be significant.
resultsThe mean tenacity adhesion scores were 1.40 ± 0.52 (PF), 1.7 ± 0.82 (SF), and 2.6 ± 1.07 (TS). Adhesions in the PF group were significantly less tenacious compared with the TS group (P = 0.01). Quantitative adhesion scores were not significantly different among groups. The maximum pull-off forces, measured in Newtons, were 28.61 N ± 4.89 N (TS), 22.71 N ± 7.86 N (SF), 16.98 N ± 7.59 N (PF), and 20.83 N ± 6.25 N (PR). The pull-off force in the TS group was higher than all of the other groups (P < 0.001). The SF group also had a higher pull-off force compared with the PF group (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe screw-type absorbable and permanent fixation devices provided adequate fixation and were associated with decreased adhesions in this porcine model.
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.