ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2015
Endoscopic and histological evaluations of a newly designed inguinal hernia mesh implant: Experimental studies on porcine animal model and human cadaver.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2015. 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.
- Innovative Strategies in Hernia Mesh Design: Materials, Mechanics, and Modeling.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Regulatory science for hernia mesh: Current status and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2021Review
- Validation of newly developed physical laparoscopy simulator in transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair.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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConventional prostheses used for inguinal hernia repair are static and passive. This feasibility-study shows the features of a new 3D tension-free prosthesis in an experimental model.
methodsThis study was divided into two-phases: 1) aimed to test the physics intrinsic features and the anatomical adaptability of a new 3D designed mesh, and 2) aimed to evaluate the inflammatory reaction associated with different materials used. On phase-1 implantations were performed in pigs. During the first trial phase, the prostheses were also implanted on human cadavers. On phase-2, implantation was carried out on large swine. Follow-up was of 60-days, after which the animals were anaesthetized for laparoscopic assessment, and for sample collection of mesh implantation site for histological analysis.
resultsAll animals showed good 3D mesh tolerance, and the follow-up period was uneventful. The laparoscopy showed no inflammatory lesions on the internal surface of the peritoneum. Macroscopic observation of implantation site revealed some local fibrosis and reorganization of tissue, no signs of infection, and no changes on original implant positioning. Histological analysis on phase-1 showed in most sample segments the deferent duct maintaining its central position and surrounded by vascular and nervous structures. On phase-2 differences in inflammatory lesion score could be found between subjects.
conclusionsThis new 3D mesh can be placed appropriately and from this preliminary animal study no untoward complications were noted over a 60 day period.
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.