ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Development of a novel murine model for treatment of infected mesh scenarios.
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.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Predictors for surgical site infection in patients undergoing therapeutic or prophylactic intra-abdominal onlay mesh (IPOM) implantation in clean and contaminated surgical fields.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Observational
- 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 · 2018Article
- 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 · 2018Review
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.