ArticleBMJ case reports2013
Two cross-linked porcine dermal implants in a single patient undergoing hernia repair.
Article in BMJ case reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering: Addressing Key Design Needs Toward Clinical Translation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Enhanced Growth of Lapine Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Derived Fibroblasts on Scaffolds Embroidered from Poly(l-lactide-International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A 50-year-old woman with a history of multiple recurrent incisional hernias and multiple comorbidities received two different porcine dermal implants during the same procedure due to the availability of products in stock. At 3.5 months following this procedure, the patient developed a secondary hernia inferior and lateral to the site of previous surgery. Both the implants were biopsied and sent for pathological evaluation. One implant was compliant and well integrated while the other was non-compliant and exhibited extensive foreign body reaction. In this case report, we examine the differences between the two porcine implants that may have caused them to react so differently in the same subject under the same conditions.
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.