ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020
Long term comparative evaluation of two types of absorbable meshes in partial abdominal wall defects: an experimental study in rabbits.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- System dynamics modeling to predict hospitalization costs in adults with inguinal hernia: a single-centre study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Fully resorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) mesh for soft tissue repair and reconstruction: A scoping review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Shifting the Goalpost in Ventral Hernia Care: 5-year Outcomes after Ventral Hernia Repair with Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate Mesh.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
- Polymer Hernia Repair Materials: Adapting to Patient Needs and Surgical Techniques.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSynthetic prosthetic materials that are fully absorbable seek to reduce the host foreign body reaction and promote host tissue regeneration. This preclinical trial was designed to analyse, in the long term, the behaviour of two prosthetic meshes, one synthetic and one composed of porcine collagen, in abdominal wall reconstruction.
methodsPartial defects were created in the abdominal walls of New Zealand rabbits and repaired using a synthetic absorbable mesh (Phasix™) or a non-crosslinked collagen bioprosthesis (Protexa™). After 3, 6, 12 and 18 months, specimens were recovered for light microscopy and collagen expression analysis to examine new host tissue incorporation, macrophage response and biomechanical strength.
resultsBoth materials showed good host tissue incorporation in line with their spatial structure. At 18 months postimplant, Protexa™ was highly reabsorbed while the biodegradation of Phasix™ was still incomplete. Collagenization of both materials was good. Macrophage counts steadily decreased over time in response to Phasix™, yet persisted in the collagen meshes. At 18 months, zones of loose tissue were observed at the implant site in the absence of herniation in both implant types. The stress-stretch behaviour of Phasix™ implants decreased over time, being more pronounced during the period of 12-18 months. Nevertheless, the abdominal wall repaired with Protexa™ became stiffer over time.
conclusionEighteen months after the implant both materials showed good compatibility but the biodegradation of Phasix™ and Protexa™ was incomplete. No signs of hernia were observed at 18 months with the stress-stretch relations being similar for both implants, regardless of the more compliant abdominal wall repaired with Protexa™ at short term.
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.