ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2016
Tissue integration and inflammatory reaction in full-thickness abdominal wall repair using an innovative composite mesh.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polypropylene-based composite mesh versus standard polypropylene mesh in the reconstruction of complicated large abdominal wall hernias: a prospective randomized study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016Trial
- Biological Scaffolds for Abdominal Wall Repair: Future in Clinical Application?Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- The Importance of Registries in the Postmarketing Surveillance of Surgical Meshes.Annals of surgery · 2018Article
- Outcomes of bridging versus mesh augmentation in laparoscopic repair of small and medium midline ventral hernias.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhen composite meshes are used in abdominal wall repair, seroma formation may persist and delay the desired integration leading to recurrence. This study compares tissue integration and inflammatory response in abdominal wall repair with composites with different absorbable synthetic barriers.
methodsFull-thickness defects created in the abdominal wall of rabbits were repaired using polypropylene prosthesis or the following composites: Physiomesh™ (Phy); Ventralight™ (Vent) and "new composite mesh" (Ncm) not yet used clinically in humans. The collected seroma was evaluated for IFN-γ/IL-4 by ELISA. Tissue integration, anti- (IL-13/TGFβ-1/IL-10/IL-4) and pro-inflammatory (TNF-α/IL-6/IFN-γ/VEGF) cytokine mRNA expression and TGFβ/VEGF immunolabeling were evaluated at 14 and 90 days post-implant.
resultsSeroma was observed in 10 of 12 Phy/Vent and 4 of 12 Ncm. Wound fluid IFN-γ showed a time-dependent significant increase in Vent and tendency to decrease in Ncm, while all composites exhibited IL-4 upward trend. Prostheses were fully infiltrated by an organized connective tissue at end time although the area had shown prior seroma. A stable mesothelium was developed, except in adhesion areas. Vent/Phy displayed a significant increase in TNF-α/IFN-γ-mRNA over time. Significant decrease in VEGF mRNA was observed in Phy/Ncm, while a significant increase of TGFβ-1 mRNA was evident in all composites over time. Ncm exhibited the highest TGFβ protein expression area at short term and the greatest percentage of VEGF positive vessels at end time.
conclusionNcm could be an appropriate candidate to improve clinical outcome showing the lower development of seroma and optimal tissue integration with minimal pro-inflammatory cytokine response over time and consistent pro-wound healing cytokine expression.
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.