ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2022
A Biomechanical Analysis of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforced Porcine Laparotomy Incisions.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionResearch indicates that prophylactic mesh may help prevent incisional hernia after laparotomy, but best practice patterns in these situations are still evolving. Here, we compare the failure loads (FLs) and biomechanical stiffness (BMS) of 35 porcine abdominal wall laparotomy incisions reinforced with meshes of various widths and fixation distances using biomechanical testing.
methodsIn each specimen, a 10-cm incision was made and closed using continuous 1-0 Maxon suture. Specimens were randomized to mesh width (none, 2.5 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, 6 cm, 8 cm) and tack separation (1.5 cm, 2 cm apart) and the meshes secured in an onlay fashion. Cyclic loads oscillating from 15 N to 140 N were applied to simulate abdominal wall stress, and the specimens subsequently loaded to failure. FLs (N) and BMS (N/mm) were comparatively analyzed.
resultsAll specimens failed via suture pull-through. FLs and BMS were lowest in specimens with suture-only (421.43 N; 11.69 N/mm). FLs and BMS were significantly higher in 4-cm mesh specimens (567.51 N) than those with suture, 2.5-cm, and 3.0-cm mesh (all P < 0.05). FLs in specimens with a greater number of tacks were consistently higher in meshes of similar sizes, although these did not reach significance.
conclusionsA 4-cm mesh reenforcement was superior to suture-only and smaller meshes at preserving strength in laparotomy closure in a porcine model but larger meshes (6 cm, 8 cm) did not provide an additional benefit. Meshes with more fixation points may be advantageous, but additional data are needed to make definitive conclusions.
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.