ArticleScientific reports2020
Bridging repair of the abdominal wall in a rat experimental model. Comparison between uncoated and polyethylene oxide-coated equine pericardium meshes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicentric pragmatic randomized controlled trial of mesh fixation system in primary and recurrent ventral hernia repair.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Abdominal wall hernia repair: from prosthetic meshes to smart materials.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- Surface Engineering Strategies to Enhance the In Situ Performance of Medical Devices Including Atomic Scale Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological meshes improve the outcome of incisional hernia repairs in infected fields but often lead to recurrence after bridging techniques. Sixty male Wistar rats undergoing the excision of an abdominal wall portion and bridging mesh repair were randomised in two groups: Group A (N = 30) using the uncoated equine pericardium mesh; Group B (N = 30) using the polyethylene oxide (PEO)-coated one. No deaths were observed during treatment. Shrinkage was significantly less common in A than in B (3% vs 53%, P < 0.001). Adhesions were the most common complication and resulted significantly higher after 90 days in B than in A (90% vs 30%, P < 0.01). Microscopic examination revealed significantly (P < 0.05) higher mesh integrity, fibrosis and calcification in B compared to A. The enzymatic degradation, as assessed with Raman spectroscopy and enzyme stability test, affected A more than B. The PEO-coated equine pericardium mesh showed higher resistance to biodegradation compared to the uncoated one. Understanding the changes of these prostheses in a surgical setting may help to optimize the PEO-coating in designing new biomaterials for the bridging repair of the abdominal wall.
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.