Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23549771›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013

Biologic meshes are not superior to synthetic meshes in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study with long-term follow-up evaluation.

M Ditzel, E B Deerenberg, N Grotenhuis, J J Harlaar, K Monkhorst, Y M Bastiaansen-Jenniskens, J Jeekel, J F Lange

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparison of Surgisis, Vypro II and TiMesh in contaminated and clean field.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Absorbable Polyglactin vs. Non-Cross-linked Porcine Biological Mesh for the Surgical Treatment of Infected Incisional Hernia.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M DitzelDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, 3015 GE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, m.ditzel@erasmusmc.nl.
E B Deerenberg
N Grotenhuis
J J Harlaar
K Monkhorst
Y M Bastiaansen-Jenniskens
J Jeekel
J F Lange
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, direct contact between the prosthesis and the abdominal viscera is inevitable, which may lead to an inflammatory reaction resulting in abdominal adhesion formation. This study compared five different synthetic and biologic meshes in terms of adhesion formation, shrinkage, incorporation, and histologic characteristics after a period of 30 and 90 days.

methodsIn 85 rats, a mesh was positioned intraperitoneally in direct contact with the viscera. Five different meshes were implanted: Prolene (polypropylene), Parietex composite (collagen-coated polyester), Strattice (porcine dermis, non-cross-linked), Surgisis (porcine small intestine submucosa, non-cross-linked), and Permacol (porcine dermis, cross-linked). The meshes were tested in terms of adhesion formation, shrinkage, and incorporation after a period of 30 and 90 days. Additionally, collagen formation after 90 days was determined.

resultsSignificantly less adhesion formation was observed with Parietex composite (5 %; interquartile range [IQR], 2-5 %) and Strattice (5 %; IQR, 4-10 %) in the long term. In contrast, organs were attached to Permacol with four of seven meshes (57 %), and adhesion coverage of Surgisis mesh was present in 66 % (IQR, 0-100 %) of the cases. After 90 days, the best incorporation was seen with the Parietex composite mesh (79 %; IQR, 61-83 %). After 90 days, major alterations in adhesion formation were seen compared with 30 days. Histologically, Strattice and Parietex composite showed a new mesothelial layer on the visceral side of the mesh. Microscopic degradation and new collagen formation were seen in the Surgisis group.

conclusionsParietex composite mesh demonstrated the best long-term results compared with all the other meshes. The biologic non-cross-linked mesh, Strattice, showed little adhesion formation and moderate shrinkage but poor incorporation. Biologic meshes are promising, but varying results require a more detailed investigation and demonstrate that biologic meshes are not necessarily superior to synthetic meshes. The significant changes that take place between 30 and 90 days should lead to careful interpretation of short-term experimental results.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsImplants, ExperimentalAbdominal WallAnimalsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCollagenForeign-Body ReactionHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyMalePolyestersPolypropylenesRandom AllocationRatsRats, WistarBiocompatible MaterialsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCollagenparietexPermacolPolyestersPolypropylenesstratticesurgisis

Identifiers

PMID23549771
OpenAlexW2059364041

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.