ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
How do we evaluate the remodeling and regeneration of absorbable meshes? Multi-dimensional evaluation parameters from multi-species.
Review in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis review aimed to systematically synthesize and standardize evaluation parameters for preclinical studies of absorbable meshes in abdominal wall hernia repair models.
methodsA comprehensive database search was conducted to identify comparative studies on the remodeling and regenerative properties of absorbable meshes in animal models of abdominal wall hernia. Stratified analysis of dimensional indicators was performed across species, and study characteristics, epidemiological data, and key model attributes were visually summarized and analyzed.
resultsRemodeling and regenerative properties were assessed across seven major dimensions: inflammatory response, scaffold degradation, tissue integration, neovascularization, extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, cellular infiltration, and fibrotic encapsulation. Evaluation methods encompassed histological analysis, molecular assays, general observation, and biomechanical testing, with outcomes reported in qualitative, quantitative, or combined formats. Inflammatory response, scaffold degradation, tissue integration, and neovascularization emerged as the most frequently assessed metrics. Histological assessment was the predominant evaluation method, and qualitative data presentation was most common. Species-stratified analysis revealed that rats and rabbits were the most frequently used models. Rat studies primarily focused on ECM deposition, inflammation, and tissue integration, whereas rabbit studies emphasized ECM deposition and inflammatory response.
conclusionInflammatory response, scaffold degradation, tissue integration, neovascularization and ECM deposition constitute core dimensions for evaluating tissue remodeling and regeneration. However, current studies show substantial inconsistency in endpoint selection and dimensional emphasis, with limited diversity in measurement techniques and a lack of consensus across species-specific models. Future research should establish species-specific core outcome sets and adopt multidimensional strategies to enable comprehensive evaluation of absorbable mesh performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41758353What 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.