ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
Evaluation of absorbable mesh fixation devices at various deployment angles.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Mesh and Fixation Options with Reoperation Risk after Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Surgery: A Swedish Hernia Registry Study of 25,190 Totally Extraperitoneal and Transabdominal Preperitoneal Repairs.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2022Article
- Comparison of mesh fixation devices for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: an experimental study on human anatomic specimens.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHernia repair failure may occur due to suboptimal mesh fixation by mechanical constructs before mesh integration. Construct design and acute penetration angle may alter mesh-tissue fixation strength. We compared acute fixation strengths of absorbable fixation devices at various deployment angles, directions of loading, and construct orientations.
methodsPorcine abdominal walls were sectioned. Constructs were deployed at 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° angles to fix mesh to the tissue specimens. Lap-shear testing was performed in upward, downward, and lateral directions in relation to the abdominal wall cranial-caudal axis to evaluate fixation. Absorbatack™ (AT), SorbaFix™ (SF), and SecureStrap™ in vertical (SSV) and horizontal (SSH) orientations in relation to the abdominal wall cranial-caudal axis were tested. Ten tests were performed for each combination of device, angle, and loading direction. Failure types and strength data were recorded. ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustments for multiple comparisons and χ (2) tests were performed as appropriate (p < 0.05 considered significant).
resultsAt 30°, SSH and SSV had greater fixation strengths (12.95, 12.98 N, respectively) than SF (5.70 N; p = 0.0057, p = 0.0053, respectively). At 45°, mean fixation strength of SSH was significantly greater than SF (18.14, 11.40 N; p = 0.0002). No differences in strength were identified at 60° or 90°. No differences in strength were noted between SSV and SSH with different directions of loading. No differences were noted between SS and AT at any angle. Immediate failure was associated with SF (p < 0.0001) and the 30° tacking angle (p < 0.01).
conclusionsMesh-tissue fixation was stronger at acute deployment angles with SS compared to SF constructs. The 30° angle and the SF device were associated with increased immediate failures. Varying construct and loading direction did not generate statistically significant differences in the fixation strength of absorbable fixation devices in this study.
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.