Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27351653›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Development of a novel murine model for treatment of infected mesh scenarios.

Arnab Majumder, Clayton C Petro, Lijia Liu, Mojtaba Fayezizadeh, Yuri W Novitsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Prophylactic, Synthetic Intraperitoneal Mesh Versus No Mesh Implantation in Patients with Fascial Dehiscence.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018
    Article
  4. 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
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arnab MajumderDepartment of Surgery, Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Clayton C PetroDepartment of Surgery, Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Lijia LiuDepartment of Surgery, Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Mojtaba FayezizadehDepartment of Surgery, Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Yuri W NovitskyDepartment of Surgery, Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. yuri.novitsky@uhhospitals.org.
Hernia Center · USUniversity Hospitals Case Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndications regarding hernia repair after removal of previously infected prostheses remain unclear. Patients may receive staged primary repair or single-stage reconstructions, neither of which may be ideal. Although animal models have simulated contamination by direct inoculation of implants with bacteria, there remains a paucity of literature, which simulates a field following mesh infection and removal. We aimed to develop a murine model to mimic this complex scenario to allow for further testing of various implants.

methodsThirty-six female CL57BL/6J mice underwent implantation of a 0.7 × 0.7 cm polyester mesh in the dorsal subcutaneous position. Wounds were closed and inoculated with 100 µL containing 1 × 10

resultsAt 2 weeks, all mice were noted to have gross mesh infection. One animal died due to overwhelming infection and wound breakdown. At 4 weeks, 5/6 (83 %) control mice who did not have a second mesh implantation had full clearance of their wounds. In contrast, 9/10 (90 %) mice with re-implantation of polypropylene were noted to have pus and recovery of GFP MSSA on plating. This was also observed in 100 % of mice with polyester and porcine mesh.

conclusionOur novel murine model demonstrates that mesh re-implantation after infected mesh removal results in infection of the newly placed prosthesis, regardless of the material characteristic or type. This model lays foundation for development and investigation of implants for treatment strategies following infected mesh removal.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsFemaleHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyMiceMice, Inbred C57BLPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationSurgical MeshSurgical Wound InfectionBiologicContaminationHernia repairInfected meshMurine modelSynthetic

Identifiers

PMID27351653
OpenAlexW2468634458

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.