ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2019
Comparative study of four different types of intraperitoneal mesh prostheses in rats.
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 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of intra-abdominal adhesions formation following implantation of synthetic, biosynthetic, and biologic meshes in a rat model.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- The ORION study protocol: impact of prior intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh placement on subsequent minimally invasive abdominal reoperations.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of efficacy and quality of life between totally extraperitoneal sublay and intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair for ventral hernia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Does intraperitoneal mesh increase the risk of bowel obstruction? A nationwide French analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Analysis of tissue inflammatory response, fibroplasia, and foreign body reaction between the polyglactin suture of abdominal aponeurosis in rats and the intraperitoneal implant of polypropylene, polypropylene/polyglecaprone and polyester/porcine collagen meshes.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare four types of mesh regarding visceral adhesions, inflammatory response and incorporation.
methodsSixty Wistar rats were divided into four groups, with different meshes implanted intraperitoneally: polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE group); polypropylene with polydioxanone and oxidized cellulose (PCD); polypropylene (PM) and polypropylene with silicone (PMS). The variables analyzed were: area covered by adhesions, incorporation of the mesh and inflammatory reaction (evaluated histologically and by COX2 immunochemistry).
resultsThe PMS group had the lowest adhesion area (63.1%) and grade 1 adhesions. The ePTFE and PM groups presented almost the total area of their surface covered by adherences (99.8% and 97.7% respectively) The group ePTFE had the highest percentage of area without incorporation (42%; p <0.001) with no difference between the other meshes. The PMS group had the best incorporation rate. And the histological analysis revealed that the inflammation scores were significantly different.
conclusionsThe PM mesh had higher density of adherences, larger area of adherences, adherences to organs and percentage of incorporation. ePTFE had the higher area of adherences and lower incorporation. The PMS mesh performed best in the inflammation score, had a higher incorporation and lower area of adherences, and it was considered the best type of mesh.
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.