Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23185528›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

A preclinical evaluation of alternative synthetic biomaterials for fascial defect repair using a rat abdominal hernia model.

Daniela Ulrich, Sharon L Edwards, Jacinta F White, Tommy Supit, John A M Ramshaw, Camden Lo, Anna Rosamilia, Jerome A Werkmeister, Caroline E Gargett

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Chapter 4.5: New Proposed Treatments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Endometrial SUSD2Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Mesh implants: An overview of crucial mesh parameters.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniela UlrichMonash Institute of Medical Research, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Sharon L Edwards
Jacinta F White
Tommy Supit
John A M Ramshaw
Camden Lo
Anna Rosamilia
Jerome A Werkmeister
Caroline E Gargett
Materials Science & Engineering · AUMonash Institute of Medical Research · AUCSIRO Manufacturing · AUMonash Medical Centre · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFascial defects are a common problem in the abdominal wall and in the vagina leading to hernia or pelvic organ prolapse that requires mesh enhancement to reduce operation failure. However, the long-term outcome of synthetic mesh surgery may be unsatisfactory due to post-surgical complications. We hypothesized that mesh fabricated from alternative synthetic polymers may evoke a different tissue response, and provide more appropriate mechanical properties for hernia repair. Our aim was to compare the in vivo biocompatibility of new synthetic meshes with a commercial mesh.

methodsWe have fabricated 3 new warp-knitted synthetic meshes from different polymers with different tensile properties polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyamide (PA) and a composite, gelatin coated PA (PA+G). The rat abdominal hernia model was used to implant the meshes (25 × 35 mm, n = 24/ group). After 7, 30, 60, 90 days tissues were explanted for immunohistochemical assessment of foreign body reaction and tissue integration, using CD31, CD45, CD68, alpha-SMA antibodies. The images were analysed using an image analysis software program. Biomechanical properties were uniaxially evaluated using an Instron Tensile® Tester.

resultsThis study showed that the new meshes induced complex differences in the type of foreign body reaction over the time course of implantation. The PA, and particularly the composite PA+G meshes, evoked a milder early inflammatory response, and macrophages were apparent throughout the time course. Our meshes led to better tissue integration and new collagen deposition, particularly with the PA+G meshes, as well as greater and sustained neovascularisation compared with the PP meshes.

conclusionPA, PA+G and PEEK appear to be well tolerated and are biocompatible, evoking an overlapping and different host tissue response with time that might convey mechanical variations in the healing tissue. These new meshes comprising different polymers may provide an alternative option for future treatment of fascial defects.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshActinsAnimalsAntigens, CDBenzophenonesBiocompatible MaterialsBiomarkersBody WeightCollagenDisease Models, AnimalDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalFasciaFasciotomyFemaleGelatinHernia, AbdominalActa2 protein, ratActinsAntigens, CDBenzophenonesBiocompatible MaterialsBiomarkersCollagenGelatinKetonesNylonspolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymers

Identifiers

PMID23185528
PMCPMC3502256
OpenAlexW2115101215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.