ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Experience of biological implants in thoracic surgery for soft tissue and chest wall reconstruction in clean and contaminated environments.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biological mesh has become an integral tool in surgery for reconstructive procedures. Acellular dermal matrices derived from porcine or bovine collagen scaffolds provide a durable implant material for use in reconstruction of the chest wall, and soft tissues including the pericardium and diaphragm. We aimed to present our experience of biological meshes used for thoracic reconstructive procedures for a wide range of clinical indications by a single surgeon, comparing the effect of contaminated and clean surgical environments and implant materials. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who had undergone thoracic surgery reconstructive procedures under a single surgical team with biological mesh material over a 16-year period from March 2009 to April 2025. Data included indication for surgery, operative procedure, surgical site, biological implant material (cross-linked or non-cross-linked), postoperative infection, in-hospital mortality and reoperation rate. We directly compared the results between patients undergoing the procedure in infected/contaminated versus clean cases. Results: In total 152 consecutive procedures were performed utilising 212 patches. Median age was 65 years (range, 24-84 years) and majority treated were males 104/152 (68%). Indications for surgery included total pleurectomy for mesothelioma (38%), resection of extended thoracic malignancy (33%), surgery for trauma or related complications (19%), and benign conditions including adult congenital abnormalities (10%). Cross-linked biological mesh had a significantly reduced surgical site infection rate compared to non-cross-linked biological mesh (n=6; 7% Conclusions: Our study evaluates and supports the continued use of biological patches for thoracic reconstruction of soft tissues and chest wall. Biological patches have a role in a diverse range of surgical indications including extended resection of malignancy and traumatic injuries and can be feasibly used in high risk contaminated surgical fields.
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.