Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25862028›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2015

Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro?

B Pérez-Köhler, S Sotomayor, M Rodríguez, M I Gegúndez, G Pascual, J M Bellón

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Frontiers in surgery · 2021
    Article
  5. A critical review of the in vitro and in vivo models for the evaluation of anti-infective meshes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

B Pérez-KöhlerDepartment of Surgery, Medical and Social Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcalá, Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona, Km 33,600, Alcalá De Henares, 28871, Madrid, Spain.
S SotomayorNetworking Research Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Madrid, Spain.
M RodríguezDepartment of Surgery, Medical and Social Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcalá, Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona, Km 33,600, Alcalá De Henares, 28871, Madrid, Spain.
M I GegúndezDepartment of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
G PascualNetworking Research Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Madrid, Spain.
J M BellónDepartment of Surgery, Medical and Social Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcalá, Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona, Km 33,600, Alcalá De Henares, 28871, Madrid, Spain. juanm.bellon@uah.es.
Biomedical Research Networking Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine · ESUniversidad de Alcalá · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough clinical data suggest the similar performance of collagen-based biological prosthetic materials to some polymer materials, the use of a biomesh for abdominal hernia repair in a setting of infection is controversial. This in vitro study compares the adhesion of two Staphylococcus strains to polymer and biological meshes.

methodsSterile fragments of Optilene(®) (Op), Surgipro™ (Surg), Preclude(®) (Precl), TIGR(®) (TIGR), Bio-A(®) (BioA), Permacol™ (Perm), Surgisis(®) (SIS), and Tutomesh(®) (Tuto) were inoculated with 10(6) CFU of S. aureus (Sa) or S. epidermidis (Se) (n = 18 per strain per mesh). The first five meshes are polymer materials while Perm, SIS and Tuto are biomeshes. After 24/48 h of incubation, bacterial adhesion was examined by sonication, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and light microscopy.

resultsSa and Se showed a high affinity for the absorbable meshes (TIGR, BioA, Perm, SIS, Tuto) (p < 0.001). Precl yielded the lowest bacterial loads (p < 0.001). Surg, Precl and BioA underwent no substantial change over time, while Op (p < 0.001) and TIGR (p < 0.05) showed decreasing bacterial loads during incubation. The Sa-contaminated biomeshes behaved similarly while biomeshes inoculated with Se returned higher bacterial yields at 48 h, especially SIS (p < 0.001). SEM and light microscopy observations revealed planktonic bacteria and biofilms on the polymer surface and bacterial niches in biomesh pores.

conclusionsWithin 48 h of contamination, the absorbable polymer and biological meshes exhibited high bacterial loads. Given their lower affinity for both bacterial strains, the conventional non-absorbable polymer materials could be better candidates for use in contaminated surgical fields.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionBiocompatible MaterialsCollagenIn Vitro TechniquesPolymersProstheses and ImplantsStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus epidermidisSurgical MeshBiocompatible MaterialsCollagenPolymersBacterial adhesionBiomeshesHernia mesh implantsPolymer materialsStaphylococcus

Identifiers

PMID25862028
OpenAlexW1984417677

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.