Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39961254›Full record

ArticleBiomaterials2025

Profiling of the macrophage response to polypropylene mesh burden in vivo.

Marrisa A Therriault, Srividya Kottapalli, Amanda Artsen, Katrina Knight, Gabrielle King, Leslie Meyn, Bryan N Brown, Pamela A Moalli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Marrisa A TherriaultDepartment of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Magee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Srividya KottapalliMagee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Amanda ArtsenDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Magee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Division of Urogynecology & Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Katrina KnightDepartment of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Magee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Gabrielle KingMagee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Leslie MeynMagee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Bryan N BrownDepartment of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Magee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Pamela A MoalliDepartment of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Magee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Division of Urogynecology & Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: moalpa@upmc.edu.

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR001858 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI RADOMSKI, THOMAS, RUBIO, DORIS M · 2016 to 2025
$11.1M
Porosity and tensioning: Critical factors to consider when choosing a prolapse meshR01HD083383 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI ABRAMOWITCH, STEVEN D, MOALLI, PAMELA A. · 2016 to 2025
$5.5M
Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health in PittsburghK12AR084218 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JUDITH YANOWITZ · 2023 to 2026
$2.2M
COELOMOCYTES IN C.ELEGANS--CELL FATE DETERMINATIONF32HD008715 · NICHD · CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, D.C. · PI YANOWITZ, JUDITH L · 2000 to 2002
$112k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001858NIAMS NIH HHS K12 AR084218NICHD NIH HHS F32 HD008715NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD083383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgical repair with polypropylene mesh (PPM) offers improved anatomical outcomes compared to reconstruction using native tissue. However, PPM repair is hampered by complications, most commonly pain or mesh exposure, occurring in over 10 % of cases. This maladaptive response is, in part, attributed to the host response to a foreign material. Previous studies have demonstrated that mesh properties, such as weight, pore size, and porosity, influence downstream outcomes. In addition, computational models and in vivo mechanistic studies demonstrate that mesh deforms after tensioning in prolapse surgery resulting in collapsed pores and wrinkles. To further investigate the role of pore collapse in mesh complications, PPM was implanted flat, or in configurations that would deform upon tensioning in a POP repair surgery using a non-human primate model. After twelve weeks, we analyzed mesh-tissue complexes to characterize the overall host response, profile the macrophage response, and observe the influence of macrophages in downstream healing outcomes that may lead to complications. The results confirm that mesh deformations reproduce mesh exposure and thinning of vagina. In the PPM configurations with the greatest deformation, mesh burden was the highest, which resulted in an overall decrease in the number of cells within the implantation site. Among the cells that were present, we observed a predominance of M1 pro-inflammatory macrophages. While flat mesh was associated with an organized cellular response, deformed mesh led to an increasingly disorganized response as mesh burden increased. Nearly half of the responding macrophages expressed markers associated both with M1 and M2 phenotypes concurrently, suggesting the possibility of newly recruited macrophages responding even 12 weeks after implantation and/or a repetitive microinjury in which macrophages are continuously recruited and polarized without resolution of the host response. Biochemically, we observed a predominantly M1 pro-inflammatory signaling environment and decreased collagen content as a response to implanted mesh. This study evidences the importance of PPM mesh properties, which may alter mesh burden upon tensioning and impact downstream healing outcomes and emphasizes the need for devices that maintain their geometry following implantation in POP surgical repair.

Indexed as

MacrophagesPolypropylenesSurgical MeshAnimalsFemalePelvic Organ ProlapseVaginaPolypropylenesHost responseMacrophageMesh burdenPelvic organ prolapsePolypropylene meshStress shielding

Identifiers

PMID39961254
PMCPMC12225754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.