ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2020
Biomechanical and adhesion comparison of linea alba prophylactic reinforcement with coated and uncoated three-dimensional T-shaped mesh in rabbits.
Article in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical evaluation of prophylactic reinforcement of the linea alba with a novel method of positioning and fixation of polypropylene mesh, in an animal model.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2025Article
- Evaluation of barbed suture for celiorrhaphy and subcutaneous closure in bitches with pyometra submitted to ovariohysterectomy.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2021Article
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 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIncisional hernia (IH) is a frequent complication of median laparotomy. The use of prophylactic mesh to reduce IH incidence has gained increasing attention. We hypothesized that in an animal model, linea alba prophylactic reinforcement with a three-dimensional T-shaped polypropylene mesh results in greater abdominal wall resistance.
methodsStudy was performed in 27 rabbits. After abdominal midline incision, animals were divided into three groups according to the laparotomy closure method used: (1)3D T-shaped coated mesh; (2)3D T-shaped uncoated mesh; and (3) closure without mesh. After 4 months, each animal's abdominal wall was resected and tensiometric tests were applied. Results included IH occurrence, adhesions to the mesh, and wound complications.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the groups in maximum tensile strength (p=0.250) or abdominal wall elongation under maximum stress (p=0.839). One rabbit from the control group developed IH (p=1.00). Small intestine and colon adhesions occurred only in the uncoated mesh group (p<0.001) and the degree of adhesions was higher in this group compared to the coated mesh group (p<0.05).
conclusionUse of the current 3D T-shaped prophylactic mesh model did not result in a significant difference in tensiometric measurements when compared with simple abdominal wall closure in rabbits.
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.