Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27757549›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2017

Adhesion prevention in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study comparing three lightweight porous meshes recommended for intraperitoneal use.

L D'Amore, F Ceci, S Mattia, M Fabbi, P Negro, F Gossetti

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Primary non-complicated midline ventral hernia: is laparoscopic IPOM still a reasonable approach?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L D'AmoreDepartment of Surgery P.Stefanini, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. linda.damore@uniroma1.it.
F CeciDepartment of Surgery P.Stefanini, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
S MattiaSchool of Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
M FabbiSchool of Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
P NegroDepartment of Surgery P.Stefanini, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
F GossettiDepartment of Surgery P.Stefanini, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn ventral hernia repair, when prosthetic material is placed intraperitoneally, it may lead to an inflammatory reaction resulting in adhesions between the mesh and abdominal viscera. Several meshes have been developed to minimize this process. In this experimental study, the ability of different combined meshes to attenuate the adhesion formation was examined.

methodsThree commercially available lightweight porous combined meshes were placed intraperitoneally to repair an abdominal wall defect in rats: DynaMesh-IPOM (PVDF + PP), TiMesh (titanium-coated filament PP) and C-QUR/FX (omega-3 fatty acid-coated filament PP). The DynaMesh-CICAT (PVDF) was implanted in the control group. Adhesion formation was macroscopically evaluated and scored after 7 and 21 days.

resultsAll animals except two presented intra-abdominal adhesions. None of the meshes examined in the study demonstrated to prevent adhesions. C-QUR/FX reduced adhesion formation at 7 days' follow-up compared with all other meshes but by 21 days this effect was diminished. Between 7 and 21 days adhesion extension significantly decreased for TiMesh. TAS did not show significant modifications between 7 and 21 days' follow-up for each mesh.

conclusionsThe combined porous meshes tested in the present study demonstrated to reduce but not to prevent the adhesion formation, even if with some differences. Combined porous meshes could be chosen instead of simple meshes for retro-rectus preperitoneal prosthetic ventral hernia repair.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyPeritoneumPolypropylenesPolyvinylsRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySurgical MeshTissue AdhesionsBiocompatible MaterialsPolypropylenesPolyvinylsExperimental ventral herniaIntraperitoneal adhesionsIPOMOmega-3-fatty acidsPVDFTitanized polypropylene mesh

Identifiers

PMID27757549
OpenAlexW2536574077

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.