Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21837484›Full record

ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2012

Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial.

A Coda, R Lamberti, S Martorana

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. International guidelines for groin hernia management.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018
    Guideline
  3. What do we know about titanized polypropylene meshes? An evidence-based review of the literature.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. An extraperitoneal approach for complex flank, iliac, and lumbar hernia.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Comparison of Surgisis, Vypro II and TiMesh in contaminated and clean field.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020
    Article
  19. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  20. Surface modification of polypropylene surgical meshes for improving adhesion with poloxamine hydrogel adhesive.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2019
    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

3 authors.

A CodaSurgical Department, Clinica Cellini, Turin, Italy. andrea.coda@hernia-repair.it
R Lamberti
S Martorana

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to classify the polymeric prosthetics used for hernia repair based on biomaterial composition and weight in an effort to clarify to surgeons what kinds of material they are dealing with and to provide a standardized system of categorization. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn intensive research effort was carried out on prosthetics that are commercially available worldwide. We conducted a search of the medical literature and companies' websites to find the weights and thicknesses of commercially available prosthetics. Where these data were lacking, we contacted manufacturers directly in order to render the research more complete. A total of 166 products were considered for classification based on biomaterial properties. Among these, a homogeneous group of 80 polypropylene monofilament knitted or woven prosthetics was selected for classification based on weight. Weights were provided for 70 prosthetics (87%), and both the weight and thickness was provided for 40 prosthetics (50%).

resultsClassification based on weight: Ultra-light <35 g/m(2), Light ≥35 < 70 g/m(2), Standard ≥70 < 140 g/m(2), Heavy ≥140 g/m(2). Classification based on biomaterial composition: simple (prosthetics made of one pure biomaterial); composite (prosthetics made of two or more different layers); combined (prosthetics made of two materials knitted or woven together); and biologic.

conclusionWeight and biomaterial classifications were proposed after an extensive analysis of commercially available prosthetics. The need for a common terminology is important to avoid misunderstandings among clinicians and technicians.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyBiocompatible MaterialsHumansSurgical MeshWeights and MeasuresBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID21837484
OpenAlexW1992935943

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.