Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37736246›Full record

ArticleMaterials today. Bio2023

In situ forming biomaterials as muscle void fillers for the provisional treatment of volumetric muscle loss injuries.

Andrew Clark, Jonathan Kulwatno, Sergey S Kanovka, Todd O McKinley, Benjamin K Potter, Stephen M Goldman, Christopher L Dearth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials today. Bio, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew ClarkExtremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jonathan KulwatnoExtremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sergey S KanovkaExtremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Todd O McKinleyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Benjamin K PotterDepartment of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Stephen M GoldmanExtremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Christopher L DearthExtremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USHenry M. Jackson Foundation · USIndiana University School of Medicine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Volumetric muscle loss (VML) represents a devastating extremity injury which leads to chronic functional deficits and disability and is unrecoverable through normal healing pathways. When left untreated, the VML pathophysiology creates many challenges towards successful treatment, such as altered residual muscle architecture, excessive fibrosis, and contracture(s). As such, innovative approaches and technologies are needed to prevent or reverse these adverse sequelae. Development of a rationally designed biomaterial technology which is intended to be acutely placed within a VML defect - i.e., to serve as a muscle void filler (MVF) by maintaining the VML defect - could address this clinical unmet need by preventing these adverse sequelae as well as enabling multi-staged treatment approaches. To that end, three biomaterials were evaluated for their ability to serve as a provisional MVF treatment intended to stabilize a VML defect in a rat model for an extended period (28 days): polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), hyaluronic acid and polyethylene glycol combination (HA + PEG), and silicone, a clinically used soft tissue void filler. HA + PEG biomaterial showed signs of deformation, while both PVA and silicone did not. There were no differences between treatment groups for their effects on adjacent muscle fiber count and size distribution. Not surprisingly, silicone elicited robust fibrotic response resulting in a fibrotic barrier with a large infiltration of macrophages, a response not seen with either the PVA or HA + PEG. Taken together, PVA was found to be the best material to be used as a provisional MVF for maintaining VML defect volume while minimizing adverse effects on the surrounding muscle.

Indexed as

BiocompatibilityExtremitiesMilitary medicineProlonged careTrauma

Identifiers

PMID37736246
PMCPMC10509707
OpenAlexW4386392506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.