Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31673846›Full record

ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020

Biofilms and effective porosity of hernia mesh: are they silent assassins?

A S W Jacombs, A Karatassas, B Klosterhalfen, K Richter, P Patiniott, C Hensman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Biofilm · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Intestinal erosion caused by meshoma displacement: A case report.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023
    Article
  9. Are late hernia mesh complications linked to Staphylococci biofilms?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

A S W JacombsMacquarie University Hospital, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
A KaratassasDepartment of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
B KlosterhalfenMVZ für Histologie, Zytologie Und Molekulare Diagnostik Düren GmbH, Düren, Germany.
K RichterBasil Hetzel Institute for Translational Health Research, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
P PatiniottDepartment of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
C HensmanDepartment of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. chensman@bigpond.net.au.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital · AUKrankenhaus Düren · DEMacquarie University · AUMonash University · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this paper is to communicate two new concepts with the potential to cause major morbidity in hernia repair, effective porosity and biofilm. These 2 concepts are interrelated and have the potential to result in mesh-related complications. Effective porosity is a term well described in the textile industry. It is best defined as the changes to pore morphology after implantation of mesh in situ. It is heavily dependent on mesh construct and repair technique and has the potential to impact hernia repair by reducing mesh tissue integration and promoting fibrosis. Bacterial biofilm is a well-described condition affecting prosthesis in breast and join replacement surgery with catastrophic consequences. There is a paucity of information on bacterial biofilm in mesh hernia repair. We speculate that bacterial biofilm has the potential to reduce the effective porosity of mesh, resulting in non-suppurative mesh-related complications as well as the potential for late suppurative infections. We describe the aetiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and preventative measures to address bacterial biofilm in mesh hernia surgery. Hernia surgeons should be familiar with these two new concepts which have the potential to cause major morbidity in hernia repair and know how to address them.

methodsOvid Medline and PubMed were searched for communications on "effective porosity" and "bacterial biofilm".

resultsThere is a paucity of information in the literature of these conditions and their impact on outcomes following mesh hernia repair.

conclusionsWe discuss the two concepts of effective porosity and biofilm and propose potential measures to reduce mesh-related complications. This includes choosing mesh with superior mesh construct and technical nuances in implanting mesh to improve effective porosity. Furthermore, measures to reduce bacterial biofilm and its consequences are suggested.

Indexed as

BiofilmsHerniorrhaphyHumansPorosityProsthesis-Related InfectionsSurgical MeshBiofilmEffective porosityHerniaMeshMesh infectionMesh pore size

Identifiers

PMID31673846
OpenAlexW2982660652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.