ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
Postimplantation host tissue response and biodegradation of biologic versus polymer meshes implanted in an intraperitoneal position.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potentiality of Antibacterial Gels for the Prophylactic Coating of Hernia Repair Prosthetic Materials.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Long term comparative evaluation of two types of absorbable meshes in partial abdominal wall defects: an experimental study in rabbits.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Imaging visceral adhesion to polymeric mesh using pneumoperitoneal-MRI in an experimental rat model.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the in vitro and in vivo behaviors at the peritoneal interface of a new polymer material (Bio-A) and of two biologic non-cross-linked materials (Tutomesh [Tuto] and Strattice [St]), all biodegradable.
methodsOmentum mesothelial cells from rabbits were seeded onto the three prosthetic materials tested. At 1, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h after implantation, mesothelial cover was performed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). In the in vivo study, 3 × 3 cm mesh fragments were placed on the parietal peritoneum of the same rabbits and fixed at the four corners with individual stitches. The implants were randomized such that six fragments of each material were implanted in nine animals (2 per animal). Adhesion formation was quantified by sequential laparoscopy and image analysis 3, 7, and 14 days after implantation. The animals were killed at 90 days, and the meshes were subjected to microscopy and immunohistochemistry.
resultsThe in vitro mesothelial cover was significantly greater for St than for Bio-A at each time point. The percentage of cover for St was also higher than for Tuto 16 and 24 h after seeding and higher for Tuto than for Bio-A at all time points. Compared with the biologic meshes, significantly higher adhesion percentages were recorded for Bio-A. At 90 days after implantation, differences in absorption measured as percentage of reduction in mesh thickness were detected among all the meshes. The least absorbed was St. The neoperitoneum thickness was significantly greater for the biologic meshes than for the polymer mesh, although this variable also differed significantly between St and Tuto. Macrophage counts were higher for Bio-A than for the biologic meshes.
conclusionsGreater mesothelial cover was observed in vitro for St. In vivo, adhesion formation and the macrophage response induced by Bio-A were greater than those elicited by the biologic materials. Bio-A and Tuto showed substantial biodegradation compared with St.
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.