ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Development and in vitro investigation of a biodegradable mesh for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regenerative Medicine Approaches to Stress Urinary Incontinence.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe use of polypropylene (PP) mesh for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery has declined because of safety concerns. The aim of this study is to evaluate a biodegradable polycaprolactone (PCL) mesh and a PCL composite mesh tissue engineered with human uterine fibroblasts (HUFs) for SUI surgery by comparing mechanical properties and in vitro biocompatibility to commercially available PP and porcine dermis (PD).
methodsThe mechanical properties of four scaffold materials were evaluated: PCL, PCL-collagen-hyaluronic acid composite, acellular porcine dermal collagen (PD) (Pelvicol™) and polypropylene (Gynecare TVT™ Exact®). HUFs were seeded on separate scaffolds. After 7 and 14 days scaffolds were assessed for metabolic activity and cell proliferation using Alamar Blue, Live/Dead and PicoGreen assays. Soluble collagen production was evaluated using a Sircol assay.
resultsPCL and the composite scaffold reached ultimate tensile strength (UTS) values closest to healthy pelvic floor tissue (PCL = 1.19 MPa; composite = 1.13 MPa; pelvic floor = 0.79 MPa; Lei et al. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 18(6):603-7, 2007). Cells on PCL showed significantly greater cell viability than PP at day 7 (p < 0.0001). At D14 the composite scaffold showed significantly greater cell viability than PP (p = 0.0006). PCL was the best performing scaffold for soluble collagen production at day 14 (106.1 μg versus 13.04 μg for PP, p = 0.0173).
conclusionsWe have designed a biodegradable PCL mesh and a composite mesh which demonstrate better biocompatibility than PP and mechanical properties closer to that of healthy pelvic floor tissue. This in vitro study provides promising evidence that these two implants should be evaluated in animal and human trials.
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.