Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32006122›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020

In-vivo evaluation of a reinforced ovine biologic: a comparative study to available hernia mesh repair materials.

N Overbeck, G M Nagvajara, S Ferzoco, B C H May, A Beierschmitt, S Qi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Outcomes of Biosynthetic and Synthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

N OverbeckTELA Bio, Inc., Malvern, PA, USA. noverbeck@telabio.com.
G M NagvajaraTELA Bio, Inc., Malvern, PA, USA.
S FerzocoDepartment of Surgery, Atrius Health, Dedham, MA, USA.
B C H MayAroa Biosurgery Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
A BeierschmittBehavioural Science Foundation, Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
S QiUniversity of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine · KNUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTwo innovative reinforced biologic materials were studied in a non-human primate hernia repair model. The test articles, which combine layers of ovine decellularized extracellular matrix with minimal amounts of synthetic polymer, were evaluated for their biologic performance as measured by inflammatory response, healing kinetics, integration, and remodeling into functional host tissue. For comparison, seven clinically used biologic and synthetic meshes were also studied.

methodsAnimals were implanted with test articles in surgically created full-thickness midline abdominal wall defects, and evaluated macroscopically and histologically at 4, 12, and 24 weeks.

resultsMacroscopically, biologics resorbed and remodeled into naturally appearing tissue; the reinforced biologics appeared similar, but remodeled earlier and were less prone to stretch. Synthetics developed a layer of reactive tissue above and separate from the contracted mesh structure. At early time points, the collagen networks of biologics and reinforced biologics were infiltrated by host cells primarily as a peripheral layer on the biologics. As early as 12 weeks, the collagen networks associated with the reinforced biologics remodeled into organized host collagen. By 24 weeks, both reinforced biologics and biologics had low levels of inflammation. In contrast, a foreign body response persisted at 24 weeks with the synthetics, which had developed less organized collagen, separate in space from the actual mesh.

conclusionsThe current study shows a favorable response to reinforced biologics, which were associated with an initial inflammatory response, resolving by later time points, followed by active remodeling, and the formation of new morphologically functional collagen.

Indexed as

Acrylic ResinsAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsDisease Models, AnimalHerniorrhaphyHumansSheepSurgical MeshAcrylic ResinsBiocompatible MaterialsRepair MaterialBiologicDecellularized extracellular matrixHernia repairMesh repair materialsSynthetic

Identifiers

PMID32006122
PMCPMC7701079
OpenAlexW3004136553

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.