ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Development of a porcine model for comprehensive in vivo and ex vivo evaluation of abdominal hernia meshes.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of facial defect closure and non-fascial closure in ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is a growing interest in developing new animal models to better understand the postoperative response of hernia meshes, which are key to improving device evaluation and clinical outcomes. This study presents an animal program using a porcine model to evaluate mesh response at the early postoperative period through in vivo imaging and and ex vivo pressure-based bench testing, comparing a lightweight flatsheet (LWF), a heavyweight flatsheet (HWF) and a self-fixating mesh (SFM).
methodsPartially radiopaque meshes were implanted in vivo in twelve pigs. Two surgical models were compared: with and without open abdominal defect. CT scans were performed immediately and one week after surgery to assess the evolution of the mesh shape, position and defect size. Ex vivo porcine AW tissues were tested for mesh dislocation under repeated 250 mmHg cyclic pressure.
resultsIn vivo, all meshes performed similarly on intact abdominal walls, while the SFM mesh demonstrated superior performance compared to LWF and HWF when implanted over an open defect without any fixation. SFM was associated with minimal adverse effects, whereas LWF and HWF frequently led to poor integration, seroma formation and mesh dislocation into the defect. Ex vivo pressure testing exhibited similar trends: SFM provided better repair protection, while LWF-and to a lesser extent HWF-exhibited progressive migration/dislocation into the defect and defect enlargement under pressure, which reduced mesh overlap and ultimately resulted in total mesh dislocation.
conclusionThis preclinical program could serve as a standardized and reproducible framework, enabling comparison of new mesh designs based on their sensitivity to known modes of failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41258501What 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.