ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
An
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The reconstruction of dura matter is a challenging problem for neurosurgeons. A number of materials for dural reconstruction have recently been developed, but some of them have poor biocompatibility, poor mechanical properties, and adverse effects. Bovine parietal peritoneum is a promising natural material for regenerative medicine and reconstructive surgery. In this study, we conducted an Methods: The dural defects in mature New Zealand rabbits were studied. A BPM was sutured on the dural defect area of each animal. Autologous periosteum and collagen membranes (Lyoplant®) were used to facilitate a comparison with the BPMs. ELISA, histomorphological analysis, and hematological analysis were carried out to examine the safety and efficacy of using BPMs as dural substitutes. Results: Our results showed that the BPMs demonstrated a deterioration rate that is suitable for gathering newly formed meningothelial tissue. The thickness and density of BPM fibers prevents resorption in the first few days after use as a plastic material, and the regeneration of the dura mater does not occur at an accelerated pace, meaning that the gradual formation of fibrous tissue prevents adhesion to the brain surface. It was observed that the BPM can integrate with the adjacent tissue to repair dural defects. Moreover, the transplantation of BPMs did not cause significant adverse effects or immunological responses, indicating the safety and good biocompatibility of the BPM. Conclusion: Thus, our
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.