Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26106284›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2014

Biologic versus Synthetic Mesh Reinforcement: What are the Pros and Cons?

James F FitzGerald, Anjali S Kumar

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 91 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT03034213 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Separation of Components Repair With Retrorectus Gentrix™ Surgical Matrix Versus Biological or Prosthetic Mesh for Open Ventral Hernia Repair

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of South FloridaRan2017 to 2021Enrolled17ConditionsVentral Incisional HerniaArmsGentrix™ Surgical Matrix (Treatment), Permacol, Parietex, Progrip, Strattice Perforated, or Surgimend (Control)
NCT03317665 terminatednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Prospective, Observational Trial of Biological or Prosthetic Mesh for Open Ventral Hernia Repair

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of South FloridaRan2019 to 2021Enrolled28ConditionsVentral Incisional HerniaArmsMesh for hernia repair
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 185 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Prophylactic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia Following End Colostomy: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James F FitzGeraldSection of Colon and Rectal Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC.
Anjali S KumarSection of Colon and Rectal Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC.
MedStar Washington Hospital Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preserving patients' native tissues has posed many challenges for surgeons. Increased life expectancy is leading to a proportionately older surgical population with weaker tissues. The growing population of morbidly obese patients in addition to those with multiple comorbidities which influence the native strength and perfusion of tissues compounds the surgeon's challenge. Certainly, there is a rising demand for materials to replace or augment a patient's native tissue when it has been compromised. Over time, the number of products available has increased substantially. The ideal substitute, however, is debatable. The manufacturing and processing of these materials has become more complex and this has resulted in a significant increase in cost. The composition of the mesh, clinical scenario, and operative technique all interact to impact the long-term results. Surgeons require a thorough understanding of these products to guide proper selection and use, to ensure optimal outcomes for patients, and to properly steward financial resources. This review will outline the properties of commonly used materials, highlighting the strength and weakness of each. It will then discuss recommendations regarding mesh selection, coding, and reimbursement. While general principles and trends can be highlighted, further studies of biologic versus synthetic meshes are clearly necessary.

Indexed as

biological meshcodingsynthetic mesh

Identifiers

PMID26106284
PMCPMC4477030
OpenAlexW2083122993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.