Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31432994›Full record

ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2019

Comparative study of peritoneal adhesions after intraperitoneal implantation in rats of meshes of polypropylene versus polypropylene/polyglecaprone versus polyester/porcine collagen.

Waston Gonçalves Ribeiro, Diego Vinnicyus Santos Rodrigues, Francisco Felipe Moreira Atta, Izabelle Smith Frazão Ramos, Fabiola Nassar Sousa Frazão, Orlando Jorge Martins Torres, Marcos Bettini Pitombo

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Waston Gonçalves RibeiroMaster, Fellow PhD degree, Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Brazil. Conception and design of the study, technical procedures, analysis and interpretation of data, statistics analysis, manuscript writing.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6141-8193
Diego Vinnicyus Santos RodriguesResident, General Surgery Residency Program, Hospital Universitário, Universidade Federal do Maranhão (HU-UFMA), Sao Luis-MA, Brazil. Technical procedures, acquisition of data.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3132-541X
Francisco Felipe Moreira AttaResident, General Surgery Residency Program, Hospital Universitário, Universidade Federal do Maranhão (HU-UFMA), Sao Luis-MA, Brazil. Technical procedures, acquisition of data.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7633-8751
Izabelle Smith Frazão RamosGraduate student, School of Medicine, UFMA, Sao Luis-Ma, Brazil. Technical procedures, acquisition of data.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1277-1393
Fabiola Nassar Sousa FrazãoGraduate student, School of Medicine, UFMA, Sao Luis-Ma, Brazil. Technical procedures, acquisition of data.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5809-4068
Orlando Jorge Martins TorresPhD, Chairman, Full Professor, Department of Surgery, UFMA, Sao Luis-Ma, Brazil. Conception and design of the study, critical revision.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7398-5395
Marcos Bettini PitomboPhD, Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, UERJ, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil. Conception and design of the study, interpretation and analysis of data, critical revision, final approval.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9897-1435
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo · BRHospital Universitário da Universidade Federal do Maranhão · BRUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRPlasma Technology (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo Compare the extent and intensity of adhesions formed between the intra-abdominal organs and the intraperitoneal implants of polypropylene mesh versus polypropylene/polyglecaprone versus polyester/porcine collagen used for correction of abdominal wall defect in rats.

methodsAfter the defect in the abdominal wall, thirty Wistar rats were placed in three groups (ten animals each) for intraperitoneal mesh implant: polypropylene group, polypropylene/polyglecaprone group, and polyester/porcine collagen group. The macroscopic evaluation of the extent and intensity of adhesions was performed 21 days after the implant.

resultsThe polypropylene group had a higher statistically significant impairment due to visceral adhesions (p value = 0.002) and a higher degree of intense adherence in relation to polypropylene/polyglecaprone and polyester/porcine collagen groups (p value<0.001). The polyester/porcine collagen group showed more intense adhesions than the polypropylene/polyglecaprone group (p value=0.035).

conclusionsThe intraperitoneal implantation of polypropylene meshes to correct defects of the abdominal wall caused the appearance of extensive and firm adhesions to intra-abdominal structures. The use of polypropylene/polyglecaprone or polyester/porcine collagen tissue-separating meshes reduces the number and degree of adhesions formed.

Indexed as

Abdominal WallAnimalsCollagenDioxanesMaleMaterials TestingPeritoneal DiseasesPolyestersPolypropylenesRatsRats, WistarSurgical MeshTissue AdhesionsCollagenDioxanesglycolide E-caprolactone copolymerPolyestersPolypropylenes

Identifiers

PMID31432994
PMCPMC6705338
OpenAlexW2967601608

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.