ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2024
The use of animal models in preclinical investigations for the development of a surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolic Syndrome Predisposes Ossabaw Minipig Retina to an Early Neurodegenerative Milieu.Cells · 2026Article
- Significance of Textile Properties for the Design of a New Pelvic Implant to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Enhancing Mesh-Tissue Integration in Menopausal Models Using a Platelet-Rich Plasma-Decellularized Amnion Scaffold Sandwich: A Study on Mesh Contraction, Inflammatory Infiltrate, IL-17, CD31, and Collagen Deposition.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- New Rat Model Mimicking Sacrocolpopexy for POP Treatment and Biomaterials Testing via Unilateral Presacral Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- A Novel Graphene-Based Nanomaterial for the Development of a Pelvic Implant to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- ComparativeBiomacromolecules · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPolypropylene (PP) mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has raised substantial concerns over long-term complications, leading to its ban in multiple countries. In response, emerging materials are being explored as alternatives for prolapse surgery. Preclinical animal models have historically played a pivotal role in validating medical devices, prior to clinical trials. Successful translation of these materials necessitates the identification of suitable animal models that replicate the female human pelvis and its biomechanical properties. Preclinical in vivo testing assesses the safety of surgical mesh and treatment efficacy in preventing POP recurrence.
methodsThe research critically reviews animal models used for preclinical pelvic mesh testing over the last decade and proposes a promising model for future preclinical studies.
resultsRats were the most common mammal used for toxicity and biocompatibility investigations through abdominal implantation. Although non-human primates serve as a gold standard for efficacy testing, ethical considerations limit their use owing to their close biological and cognitive resemblance to humans. Consequently, sheep were the most preferred large animal model owing to their reproductive system similarities and propensity for spontaneous POP following parity.
conclusionThe study contributes valuable insights into the selection of appropriate animal models for preclinical pelvic mesh testing, offering guidance that is crucial for enhancing the safety and efficacy of novel surgical interventions in the treatment of POP.
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.