ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
Evaluation of surgical instrument handling on polypropylene mesh using scanning electron microscopy.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2014. 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.
- A new treatment of female stress urinary incontinence with vaginal antetheca-retropubic space mesh repair surgery: a clinical trial.World journal of urology · 2018Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo evaluate the effect of surgical instruments handling on polypropylene mesh using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
methodsWe applied different surgical instruments, including a few robotic ones, to pieces of polypropylene mesh. SEM was used to evaluate the morphological changes with this intervention.
resultsStraight hemostat, laparoscopic atraumatic grasper, laparoscopic needle driver, and robotic instruments (Bipolar forceps, Cadiere forceps, PK dissecting forceps and SutureCut) were applied to the mesh. SEM images of tool-affected mesh regions in specimens handled by different instruments along with the images of intact mesh were obtained. Average mesh fiber diameters, as well as the average parameters characterizing instrument-affected regions, were measured. There was substantial widening of the fibers in specimens handled by hemostat or a needle holder. An elliptical but much longer and narrower tool marking with more surface roughness was observed in mesh handled by a grasper. A ∼25-μm-wide and ∼200-μm-long strap was split on one side from the core of the fiber caused by Cadiere.
conclusionsThere are morphological changes to polypropylene mesh caused by instrument handling. These changes are different depending on the instrument used. These alterations vary from changes in the surface creating roughness of the fiber, compression of the mesh with narrowing of the fiber in at least one direction or actual splitting or pitting of the fiber. Since there are no data regarding the effect of these morphological changes to the ultimate functioning of the mesh, surgeons should minimize mesh handling by instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24297064What 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.