ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Evaluation of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene mesh placed intraperitoneally in a New Zealand white rabbit model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and tissue remodeling assay of small intestinal submucosa meshes using a modified porcine surgical hernia model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- In vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models: a review of biocompatibility.International urogynecology journal · 2017Review
- Intra Peritoneal Polypropylene Mesh and Newer Meshes in Ventral Hernia Repair: What EBM Says?The Indian journal of surgery · 2013Review
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
backgroundThe intraperitoneal application of surgical mesh remains a controversial issue because of possible complications, especially adhesion and fistula formation. This study aimed to assess the potential of a knitted polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh for intraabdominal implantation.
methodsTwenty-eight 5 × 5 cm samples of knitted macroporous PTFE mesh and light-weight polypropylene mesh (LW-PP) were implanted intraperitoneally in 14 New Zealand white rabbits in a randomized manner and fixed using eight polypropylene stitches. After 90 days, the adhesion formation, adhesion score, shrinkage, strength of fixation to the abdominal wall, and histologic biocompatibility were assessed.
resultsNo intraoperative or anesthesia-related complications or mesh infection were recorded. The average area covered by adhesions was 4.7 ± 7.2% for the PTFE and 36.4 ± 36.1% for the LW-PP. The median adhesion score was 0 for the PTFE and 8 for the LW-PP. Shrinkage was 36.9 ± 12.9% for the PTFE mesh and 12.6 ± 8.72% for the LW-PP. The mesh-to-abdominal wall fixation strength was almost the same for both materials (PTFE 3.6 ± 1.9 vs. LW-PP 3.6 ± 2.9). The inflammatory cell count was almost the same for the two groups, with no statistically significant difference. The width of the inner granuloma was equal (PTFE 10.5 ± 0.9 vs. LW-PP 11.1 ± 0.9). The outer granuloma was reduced significantly in the PTFE group (PTFE 23.0 ± 2.1 vs. LW-PP 33.6 ± 7.9). One of the animals in the PTFE group died on postoperative day 12 because of ileus. The reason was an adhesion of the small intestine to the polypropylene fixation stitch, which caused small intestine strangulation.
conclusionsThe knitted PTFE mesh induces fewer intraperitoneal adhesions of lower density than the light-weight polypropylene mesh. The strength of the knitted PTFE mesh fixation to the abdominal wall is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene mesh, but the shrinkage is greater. The biocompatibility of the knitted PTFE mesh is comparable with that of the light-weight polypropylene implant.
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.