Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25033941›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2014

Evaluation of three purely polypropylene meshes of different pore sizes in an onlay position in a New Zealand white rabbit model.

J Jerabek, T Novotny, K Vesely, J Cagas, V Jedlicka, P Vlcek, I Capov

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of a Novel Absorbable Mesh in a Porcine Model of Abdominal Wall Repair.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021
    Article
  6. The 4 Principles of Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Mesh implants: An overview of crucial mesh parameters.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015
    Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J Jerabek1st Department of Surgery, St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekarska 53, 656 91, Brno, Czech Republic, jiri.jerabek@fnusa.cz.
T Novotny
K Vesely
J Cagas
V Jedlicka
P Vlcek
I Capov
Masaryk University · CZSt. Anne's University Hospital Brno · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of the pore size of a polypropylene mesh on the shrinkage and elasticity of the mesh-tissue complex and the inflammatory reaction to the implant in an open onlay hernia repair. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty-one 10 × 10 cm samples of polypropylene meshes of a different pore size (3.0 × 2.8 mm-PP3, 1.0 × 0.8 mm-PP1 and 0.6 × 0.5 mm-PP.5) were implanted in an onlay position in 21 New Zealand white rabbits. After 90 days of implantation the shrinkage, elasticity and foreign body reaction (FBR) were assessed.

resultsThe shrinkage of PP3 was 30.6 ± 4.3 %, PP1 49.3 ± 2.9 % and PP.5 49.5 ± 2.6 %. The shrinkage of PP3 was significantly lower (PP3 × PP1 p = 0.007, PP3 × PP.5 p = 0.005), PP1 and PP.5 were similar. The elasticity was similar. The strength of FBR in mesh pores was similar. The width of foreign body granuloma layers at the mesh-tissue interface was significantly reduced with increasing pore size (inner: PP3 10.1 ± 1.2; PP1 12.5 ± 2.9; PP.5 17.4 ± 5.2 and outer: PP3 21.2 ± 2.5; PP1 30.6 ± 6.3; PP.5 60.4 ± 14.9). All differences between the widths of granuloma layers were statistically significant (p < 0.010). One animal (PP1) was excluded because of a mesh infection.

conclusionsImplantation of polypropylene mesh of a pore size of 3 mm in an onlay position is associated with a significant reduction of shrinkage in comparison to a 1 mm pore lightweight and 0.5 mm pore heavyweight mesh. A pore size increase to 3 mm is not sufficient for an improvement of mesh-tissue complex elasticity in comparison to a 1 mm pore lightweight and 0.5 mm heavyweight mesh. Polypropylene mesh with enlarged pores to 3 mm is associated with a similar strength of FBR in mesh pores and a reduced foreign body granuloma in comparison to a 1 mm pore lightweight and 0.5 mm pore heavyweight mesh.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphySurgical MeshAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsDisease Models, AnimalElasticityGranuloma, Foreign-BodyInflammationMaterials TestingPolypropylenesRabbitsBiocompatible MaterialsPolypropylenes

Identifiers

PMID25033941
OpenAlexW2003191629

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.