ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2013
Evaluation of xenogenic extracellular matrices as adjuvant scaffolds for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and in vitro investigation of a biodegradable mesh for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTissue-engineered biomaterials have shown recent promise as adjuvant scaffolds for treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The objective of the present study was to compare their mechanical and regenerative properties with synthetic biomaterials in this urogynaecological setting.
methodsThe biomechanical properties of polypropylene (Serasis®; n = 12), four-ply urinary bladder matrix (UBM; n = 12) and four-ply small intestinal submucosa (SIS; n = 12) were determined with uni-axial tensile testing protocols and compared with stress-strain curves. Subsequently, human dermal fibroblasts (2.5 × 10(4)cells/cm(2)) were cultured onto each biomaterial under conventional laboratory growth conditions for 12 consecutive days. Attachment, viability, and proliferative activity of fibroblasts were evaluated and compared using quantitative viability indicators and scanning electron microscopy.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the biomechanical properties of each biomaterial assessed. Incremental stiffness at 0-10 % strain measured 5.73 ± 0.36 MPa for polypropylene compared with 8.23 ± 0.92 MPa and 6.81 ± 0.83 MPa for SIS and UBM respectively (p > 0.05). Viability and proliferative activity of fibroblasts differed significantly on all three biomaterials with the luminal and abluminal surfaces of the UBM demonstrating significantly greater rates of fibroblast proliferation compared with polypropylene and SIS (p < 0.01).
conclusionThis is the first comparative study on porcine UBM, porcine SIS, and synthetic polypropylene as adjuvant scaffolds for the treatment of SUI. Our results demonstrate that porcine UBM may provide an attractive alternative owing to its superior remodelling potential.
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.