Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33433739›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022

The experimental methodology and comparators used for in vivo hernia mesh testing: a 10-year scoping review.

T Whitehead-Clarke, R Karanjia, J Banks, V Beynon, S Parker, D Sanders, V Mudera, A Windsor, A Kureshi

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

T Whitehead-ClarkeDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Charles Bell House, Foley Street, London, W1W 7TY, UK. Thomaswhitehead-clarke@doctors.org.uk.
R KaranjiaDepartment of General Surgery, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
J BanksDepartment of General Surgery, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
V BeynonDepartment of General Surgery, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
S ParkerDepartment of General Surgery, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
D SandersDeartment of General Surgery, North Devon NHS Healthcare Trust, London, UK.
V MuderaDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Charles Bell House, Foley Street, London, W1W 7TY, UK.
A WindsorPrincess Grace Hospital, HCA Healthcare, London, UK.
A KureshiDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Charles Bell House, Foley Street, London, W1W 7TY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBefore being marketed, hernia mesh must undergo in vivo testing, which often includes biomechanical and histological assessment. Currently, there are no universal standards for this testing and methods vary greatly within the literature. A scoping review of relevant studies was undertaken to analyse the methodologies used for in vivo mesh testing.

methodsMedline and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies. 513 articles were identified and 231 duplicates excluded. 126 papers were included after abstract and full text review. The data extraction was undertaken using standardised forms.

resultsMesh is most commonly tested in rats (53%). 78% of studies involve the formation of a defect; in 52% of which the fascia is not opposed. The most common hernia models use mesh to bridge an acute defect (50%). Tensile strength testing is the commonest form of mechanical testing (63%). Testing strip widths and test speeds vary greatly (4-30 mm and 1.625-240 mm/min, respectively). There is little consensus on which units to use for tensile strength testing. Collagen is assessed for its abundance (54 studies) more than its alignment (18 studies). Alignment is not measured quantitatively. At least 21 histological scoring systems are used for in vivo mesh testing.

conclusionsThe current practice of in vivo mesh testing lacks standardisation. There is significant inconsistency in every category of testing, both in methodology and comparators. We would call upon hernia organisations and materials testing institutions to discuss the need for a standardised approach to this field.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphySurgical MeshAnimalsHerniaHumansMaterials TestingProstheses and ImplantsRatsTensile StrengthHerniaIn-vivoMeshStandardisationTesting

Identifiers

PMID33433739
PMCPMC8881265

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.