↓ Skip to main content

Adhesion prevention in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study comparing three lightweight porous meshes recommended for intraperitoneal use

Overview of attention for article published in Hernia, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Adhesion prevention in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study comparing three lightweight porous meshes recommended for intraperitoneal use
Published in
Hernia, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10029-016-1541-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. D’Amore, F. Ceci, S. Mattia, M. Fabbi, P. Negro, F. Gossetti

Abstract

In ventral hernia repair, when prosthetic material is placed intraperitoneally, it may lead to an inflammatory reaction resulting in adhesions between the mesh and abdominal viscera. Several meshes have been developed to minimize this process. In this experimental study, the ability of different combined meshes to attenuate the adhesion formation was examined. Three commercially available lightweight porous combined meshes were placed intraperitoneally to repair an abdominal wall defect in rats: DynaMesh-IPOM (PVDF + PP), TiMesh (titanium-coated filament PP) and C-QUR/FX (omega-3 fatty acid-coated filament PP). The DynaMesh-CICAT (PVDF) was implanted in the control group. Adhesion formation was macroscopically evaluated and scored after 7 and 21 days. All animals except two presented intra-abdominal adhesions. None of the meshes examined in the study demonstrated to prevent adhesions. C-QUR/FX reduced adhesion formation at 7 days' follow-up compared with all other meshes but by 21 days this effect was diminished. Between 7 and 21 days adhesion extension significantly decreased for TiMesh. TAS did not show significant modifications between 7 and 21 days' follow-up for each mesh. The combined porous meshes tested in the present study demonstrated to reduce but not to prevent the adhesion formation, even if with some differences. Combined porous meshes could be chosen instead of simple meshes for retro-rectus preperitoneal prosthetic ventral hernia repair.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Engineering 2 7%
Materials Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,823,285
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Hernia
#827
of 1,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,859
of 316,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hernia
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.