Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34845538›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022

A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model.

Nadja Trageser, Axel Sauerwald, Sebastian Ludwig, Wolfram Malter, Kilian Wegmann, Leonidas Karapanos, Julia Radosa, Alina Katharina Jansen, Christian Eichler

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Nadja TrageserDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50931, Cologne, Germany. ntragese@smail.uni-koeln.de.
Axel SauerwaldDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, St. Marien Hospital Düren, Duren, Germany.
Sebastian LudwigDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Wolfram MalterDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Kilian WegmannDepartment for Trauma, Hand and Elbow Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Leonidas KarapanosDepartment of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Julia RadosaDepartment for Gynecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany.
Alina Katharina JansenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Christian EichlerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50931, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany different surgical approaches have been established for the repair of a pelvic organ prolapse. Especially in laparoscopic surgery, it is important to generate easy surgical techniques with similar stability. This study shall simplify the choice of mesh by evaluating three polypropylene meshes regarding their biomechanical properties.

methodsBiomechanical testing was performed in the porcine model. The meshes are fixated on porcine fresh cadaver cervices after subtotal hysterectomy. The apical part of the mesh is fixated with parallel screw clamps at the testing frame. Forty-one trials were performed overall, subdivided into four subgroups. The groups differ in mesh type and fixation method. Maximum load, displacement at failure and stiffness parameters were evaluated with an Instron 5565

resultsSERATEX

conclusionAll meshes achieved a good tensile strength, but the results of maximum load show that the E11 is superior to the other meshes. Through a bilateral fixation of SERATEX

Indexed as

Pelvic FloorPelvic Organ ProlapseAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaFemalePolypropylenesSurgical MeshSwineTensile StrengthPolypropylenesBiomechanical testingLaparoscopyPelvic organ prolapsePolypropylene meshSacrocervicopexyUro-gynecological surgery

Identifiers

PMID34845538
PMCPMC8918124

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.