ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Comparing different tissue-engineered repair materials for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence: which material is better?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating tissue-engineered repair material for pelvic floor dysfunction: a comparison of in vivo response to meshes implanted in rats.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Tissue-engineered repair material for pelvic floor dysfunction.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- The Potential of Novel Chitosan-Based Scaffolds in Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) Treatment through Tissue Engineering.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Managing female pelvic floor disorders: a medical device review and appraisal.Interface focus · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSynthetic non-absorbable meshes are widely used to augment surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but these meshes are associated with serious complications. This study compares the attachment and extracellular matrix (ECM) production of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) on different biodegradable nanomaterials to develop tissue engineered repair materials.
methodsRat ADSCs were isolated and cultured on electrospun poly-L-lactic acid (PLA) and electrospun poly(L-lactide)-trimethylene carbonate-gycolide (PLTG) terpolymers for 1 and 2 weeks. Samples were tested for cell proliferation (cell counting kit-8), microstructure, and morphology (scanning electron microscopy), production of ECM components (immunostaining for collagen I, collagen III, and elastin) and biomechanical properties (uniaxial tensile methods).
resultsThe ADSCs showed good attachment and proliferation on both PLA and PLTG scaffolds. The production of collagen I and collagen III on both scaffolds was greater at 14 days than at 7 days and was greater on PLTG scaffolds than on PLA scaffolds, but these differences were not significant. The addition of ADSCs onto scaffolds led to a significant increase in the biomechanical properties of both PLA and PLTG scaffolds compared with unseeded scaffolds.
conclusionThese data support the use of both PLA and PLTG as tissue-engineered repair materials for POP or SUI.
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.