ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Biological Scaffolds for Abdominal Wall Repair: Future in Clinical Application?
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of ovine reinforced tissue matrix for ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- ECM Remodeling in Direct Inguinal Hernia: The Role of Aging, Oxidative Stress, and Antioxidants Defenses.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- Advances in Innovative Surgical Implant Manufacturing for Hernia Repair and Soft Tissue Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Nanocomposite Biomaterials for Tissue-Engineered Hernia Repair: A Review of Recent Advances.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Design of a Janus Composite Patch with Anti-Adhesive and Growth-Promoting Functions for Abdominal Wall Defect Repair.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Definitive Closure Using an Ovine Reinforced Tissue Matrix in Contaminated Penetrating Abdominal Trauma.The American journal of case reports · 2024Article
- Are Surgeons Going to Be Left Holding the Bag? Incisional Hernia Repair and Intra-Peritoneal Non-Absorbable Mesh Implant Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Recent Advances in Functional Hydrogel for Repair of Abdominal Wall Defects: A Review.Biomaterials research · 2024Article
- A Review of Abdominal Meshes for Hernia Repair-Current Status and Emerging Solutions.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Efficient Decellularization of the Full-Thickness Rat-Derived Abdominal Wall to Produce Acellular Biologic Scaffolds for Tissue Reconstruction: Promising Evidence Acquired from In Vitro Results.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes of open abdominal wall reconstruction with the use of a polypropylene reinforced tissue matrix: a multicenter retrospective study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
- Review
- Antimicrobial Meshes for Hernia Repair: Current Progress and Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Reinforced Biologic Mesh Reduces Postoperative Complications Compared to Biologic Mesh after Ventral Hernia Repair.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Design Considerations to Facilitate Clinical Radiological Evaluation of Implantable Biomedical Structures.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2021Article
- Regulatory science for hernia mesh: Current status and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2021Review
- Extracellular Matrix Patches for Endarterectomy Repair.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- A Comprehensive Comparison of Bovine and Porcine Decellularized Pericardia: New Insights for Surgical Applications.Biomolecules · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Millions of abdominal wall repair procedures are performed each year for primary and incisional hernias both in the European Union and in the United States with extremely high costs. Synthetic meshes approved for augmenting abdominal wall repair provide adequate mechanical support but have significant drawbacks (seroma formation, adhesion to viscera, stiffness of abdominal wall, and infection). Biologic scaffolds (i.e., derived from naturally occurring materials) represent an alternative to synthetic surgical meshes and are less sensitive to infection. Among biologic scaffolds, extracellular matrix scaffolds promote stem/progenitor cell recruitment in models of tissue remodeling and, in the specific application of abdominal wall repair, have enough mechanical strength to support the repair. However, many concerns remain about the use of these scaffolds in the clinic due to their higher cost of production compared with synthetic meshes, despite having the same recurrence rate. The present review aims to highlight the pros and cons of using biologic scaffolds as surgical devices for abdominal wall repair and present possible improvements to widen their use in clinical practice.
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.