ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2017
Burst inflation test for measuring biomechanical properties of rat abdominal walls.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEvaluation of potential grafts to improve upon current strategies for abdominal wall (AW) repair in small animal models typically involves mechanical testing using methods that currently are inadequate to assess physiologically relevant parameters. This study introduces burst inflation testing as a more relevant assessment of the mechanical integrity of the AW compared to traditional tensile testing.
methodsAWs were excised from 14 healthy adult Fischer 344 rats and tested using either a custom burst inflation device or an Instron tensile testing system. Modulus outcomes from both testing methods were compared.
resultsMechanical analyses of native AW using burst and tensile testing methods resulted in similar average tissue moduli, but with the burst test, there was significantly less variability among specimens.
conclusionsThe burst test had greater repeatability compared to tensile testing and has the ability to test repaired AWs without compromising the integrity of the repair site, making it a useful tool for assessing graft repairs.
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.