ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2021
Biomechanical Parameters of Mesh Reinforcement and Analysis of a Novel Device for Incisional Hernia Prevention.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Biomechanical Analysis of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforced Porcine Laparotomy Incisions.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
- National epidemiologic trends (2008-2018) in the United States for the incidence and expenditures associated with incisional hernia in relation to abdominal surgery.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProphylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) is an effective technique utilized to reduce the risk of incisional hernia. This study analyzes the biomechanical characteristics of a mesh-reinforced closure and evaluates a novel prophylactic mesh implantation device (SafeClose Roller System; SRS). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of eight senior-level general surgery trainees (≥4 years of training) from the University of Pennsylvania Health System participated in the study. Biomechanical strength, mesh stiffness, mesh uniformity, and time efficiency for fixation were compared among hand-sewn mesh fixation, SRS mesh fixation and a no-mesh fixation control. Porcine abdominal wall specimens served as simulated laparotomy models.
resultsBiomechanical load strength was significantly higher for mesh reinforced repairs (P = 0.009). The SRS resulted in a stronger biomechanical force than hand-sewn mesh (21.2 N stronger, P = 0.317), with more uniform mesh placement (P < 0.01), faster time of fixation (P < 0.001) and with less discrete hand-movements (P < 0.001).
conclusionsMesh reinforcement for incisional reinforcement has a significant impact on the strength of the closure. The utilization of a mesh-application system has the potential to amplify the advantages of mesh reinforcement by providing efficiency and consistency to fixation methods, with similar biomechanical strength to hand-sewn mesh. Additional in vivo analysis and randomized controlled trials are needed to further assess clinical efficacy.
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.