ArticleSurgical innovation2019
Non-Cross-Linked Collagen Mesh Performs Best in a Physiologic, Noncontaminated Rat Model.
Article in Surgical innovation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Biosynthetic and Synthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Reinforced Biologic Mesh Reduces Postoperative Complications Compared to Biologic Mesh after Ventral Hernia Repair.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Current Insights into Collagen Type I.Polymers · 2021Review
- XCM Biologic Tissue Matrix xenograft and autologous micromucosa graft for vaginal reconstruction in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.Archives of plastic surgery · 2021Article
- Extracellular Matrix-Based Biomaterials and Their Influence Upon Cell Behavior.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, direct contact between the prosthesis and abdominal viscera is inevitable and may lead to adhesions. Despite the large variety of mesh prosthesis, little is known about their in vivo behavior. Biological meshes are considered to have many advantages, but due to their price they are rarely used. A rat model was used to assess biological and conventional synthetic meshes on their in vivo characteristics.
designOne-hundred twenty male Wistar rats were randomized into five groups of 24 rats. A mesh was implanted intraperitoneally and fixated with nonresorbable sutures. The following five meshes were implanted: Parietene (polypropylene), Permacol (cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix), Strattice (non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix), XCM Biologic (non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix), and Omyra Mesh (condensed polytetrafluoroethylene). The rats were sacrificed after 30, 90, or 180 days. Incorporation, shrinkage, adhesions, abscess formation, and histology were assessed for all meshes.
resultsAll animals thrived postoperatively. After 180 days, Permacol, Parietene, and Omyra Mesh had a significantly better incorporation than Strattice ( P = .001, P = .019, and P = .037 respectively). After 180 days, Strattice had significantly fewer adhesions on the surface of the mesh than Parietene ( P < .001), Omyra Mesh ( P = .011), and Permacol ( P = .027). After 30 days, Permacol had significantly stronger adhesions than Strattice ( P = .030). However, this difference was not significant anymore after 180 days. After 180 days, there was significantly less shrinkage in Permacol than in Strattice ( P = .001) and Omyra Mesh ( P = .050).
conclusionBased on incorporation, adhesions, mesh shrinkage, and histologic parameters, Strattice performed best in this experimental rat model.
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.