ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2012
Comparison of a lightweight polypropylene mesh (Optilene® LP) and a large-pore knitted PTFE mesh (GORE® INFINIT® mesh)--Biocompatibility in a standardized endoscopic extraperitoneal hernia model.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02023203 (Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Microporous Polypropylene Mesh and Flexible Macroporous Polytetrafluoroethylene Mesh in Totally Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Microporous Polypropylene Mesh and Flexible Macroporous Polytetrafluoroethylene Mesh in Totally Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of Prophylactic Mesh in End-Colostomy Construction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.World journal of surgery · 2016Pooled it
- Polytetrafluoroethylene versus polypropylene mesh during laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair of inguinal hernia: short- and long-term results of a double-blind clinical randomized controlled trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Trial
- Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Innovation and Development in Polymer Heart Valves: A New Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.European cardiology · 2025Review
- Difficulties in Diagnosing Extraperitoneal Ureteroinguinal Hernias: A Review of the Literature and Clinical Experience of a Rare Encounter in Acute Surgical Care Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Polymer Hernia Repair Materials: Adapting to Patient Needs and Surgical Techniques.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Polypropylene, polyester or polytetrafluoroethylene-is there an ideal material for mesh augmentation at the esophageal hiatus? Results from an experimental study in a porcine model.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2014Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of a mesh with good biocompatibility properties is of decisive importance for the avoidance of recurrences and chronic pain in endoscopic hernia repair surgery. As we know from numerous experiments and clinical experience, large-pore, lightweight polypropylene meshes possess the best biocompatibility. However, large-pore meshes of different polymers may be used as well and might be an alternative solution.
methodsUtilizing a totally extraperitoneal technique in an established animal model, 20 domestic pigs were implanted with either a lightweight large-pore polypropylene (PP) mesh (Optilene® LP) or a medium-weight large-pore knitted polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) mesh (GORE® INFINIT® mesh). After 94 days, the pigs were sacrificed and postmortem diagnostic laparoscopy was performed, followed by explantation of the specimens for macroscopic, histological and immunohistochemical evaluation.
resultsThe mean mesh shrinkage rate was 14.2% for Optilene® LP vs. 24.7% for INFINIT® mesh (p = 0.017). The partial volume of the inflammatory cells was 11.2% for Optilene® LP vs. 13.9% for INFINIT (n.s.). CD68 was significantly higher for INFINIT (11.8% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.007). The markers of cell turnover, namely Ki67 and the apoptotic index, were comparable at 6.4% vs. 12.4% (n.s.) and 1.6% vs. 2.0% (n.s.). In the extracellular matrix, TGF-β was 35.4% for Optilene® LP and 31.0% for INFINIT® (n.s.). Collagen I (pos/300 μm) deposits were 117.8 and 114.9, respectively.
conclusionIn our experimental examinations, Optilene® LP and INFINIT® showed a comparable biocompatibility in terms of chronic inflammatory reaction; however, the shrinkage rate was significantly higher for INFINIT® after 3 months. The higher shrinkage rate of INFINIT® should be taken into account when choosing the mesh size for an adequate hernia overlap.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21989559What 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.