ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2014
Biomechanical evaluation of three fixation modalities for preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a 24-hour postoperative study in pigs.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study of the biomechanical response of a prosthetic mesh secured with penetrating and non-penetrating fixations in IPOM ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Fascinating history of groin hernias: Comprehensive recognition of anatomy, classic considerations for herniorrhaphy, and current controversies in hernioplasty.World journal of methodology · 2021Review
- Crucial anatomy and technical cues for laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair: Advanced manipulation for groin hernias in adults.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTacks and sutures ensure a strong fixation of meshes, but they can be associated with pain and discomfort. Less invasive methods are now available. Three fixation modalities were compared: the ProGrip™ laparoscopic self-fixating mesh; the fibrin glue Tisseel™ with Bard™ Soft Mesh; and the SorbaFix™ absorbable fixation system with Bard™ Soft Mesh. MATERIALS AND
methodsMeshes (6 cm ×6 cm) were implanted in the preperitoneal space of swine. Samples were explanted 24 hours after surgery. Centered defects were created, and samples (either ten or eleven per fixation type) were loaded in a pressure chamber. For each sample, the pressure, the mesh displacement through the defect, and the measurements of the contact area were recorded.
resultsAt all pressures tested, the ProGrip™ laparoscopic self-fixating mesh both exhibited a significantly lower displacement through the defect and retained a significantly higher percentage of its initial contact area than either the Bard™ Soft Mesh with Tisseel™ system or the Bard™ Soft Mesh with SorbaFix™ absorbable fixation system. Dislocations occurred with the Bard™ Soft Mesh with Tisseel™ system and with the Bard™ Soft Mesh with SorbaFix™ absorbable fixation system at physiological pressure (,225 mmHg). No dislocation was recorded for the ProGrip™ laparoscopic self-fixating mesh.
conclusionAt 24 hours after implantation, the mechanical fixation of the ProGrip™ laparoscopic self-fixating mesh was found to be significantly better than the fixation of the Tisseel™ system or the SorbaFix™ absorbable fixation system.
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.