Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27819753›Full record

ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

A new material to prevent urethral damage after implantation of artificial devices: an experimental study.

Salvador Vilar Correia Lima, Marcilio Romero Machado, Flávia Cristina Morone Pinto, Mariana Montenegro de Melo Lira, Amanda Vasconcelos de Albuquerque, Eugênio Soares Lustosa, Jaiurte Gomes Martins da Silva, Olávio Campos

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Salvador Vilar Correia LimaNúcleo de Cirurgia Experimental, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Cirurgia do Departamento de Cirurgia do Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.
Marcilio Romero MachadoServiço de Urologia do Hospital das Clínicas, Departamento de Cirurgia do Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.
Flávia Cristina Morone PintoNúcleo de Cirurgia Experimental, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Cirurgia do Departamento de Cirurgia do Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.
Mariana Montenegro de Melo LiraDepartamento de Patologia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.
Amanda Vasconcelos de AlbuquerqueDepartamento de Cirurgia do Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.
Eugênio Soares LustosaServiço de Urologia do Hospital das Clínicas, Departamento de Cirurgia do Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.
Jaiurte Gomes Martins da SilvaNúcleo de Cirurgia Experimental, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Cirurgia do Departamento de Cirurgia do Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.
Olávio CamposDepartamento de Biologia Aplicada à Saúde, Laboratório de Imunopatologia Keizo Asami (LIKA), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, UFPE, Brasil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo validate the application of the bacterial cellulose (BC) membrane as a protecting bar-rier to the urethra. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty female Wistar rats (four groups of 10): Group 1 (sham), the urethra was dissected as in previous groups and nothing applied around; Group 2, received a 0.7cm strip of the BC applied around the urethra just below the bladder neck; Group 3, received a silicon strip with the same dimensions as in group 2; Group 4, had a combination of 2 and 3 groups being the silicon strip applied over the cellulosic material. Half of the animals in each group were killed at 4 and 8 months. Bladder and urethra were fixed in formalin for histological analysis.

resultsInflammatory infiltrates were more intense at 4 months at lymphonodes (80% Grade 2), statistically different in the group 2 compared with groups 1 (p=0.0044) and 3 (p=0.0154). At 8 months, all samples were classified as grade 1 indicating a less intense inflammatory reaction in all groups. In group 2, at 8 months, there was a reduction in epithelial thickness (30±1μm) when com-pared to groups 1 (p=0.0001) and 3 (p<0.0001). Angiogenesis was present in groups 2 and 4 and absent in group 3. In BC implant, at 4 and 8 months, it was significant when comparing groups 4 with 1 (p=0.0159).

conclusionBC membrane was well integrated to the urethral wall promoting tissue remodeling and strengthening based on morphometric and histological results and may be a future option to prevent urethral damage.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBiocompatible MaterialsCelluloseFemaleMembranesModels, AnimalProsthesis ImplantationRats, WistarReproducibility of ResultsSiliconesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUrethraUrethral DiseasesUrinary IncontinenceBiocompatible MaterialsCelluloseSiliconesBiocompatible MaterialsUrethraUrinary Incontinence

Identifiers

PMID27819753
PMCPMC5433374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.