↓ Skip to main content

A clinically relevant in vivo model for the assessment of scaffold efficacy in abdominal wall reconstruction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Tissue Engineering, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A clinically relevant in vivo model for the assessment of scaffold efficacy in abdominal wall reconstruction
Published in
Journal of Tissue Engineering, December 2016
DOI 10.1177/2041731416686532
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey CY Chan, Krishna Burugapalli, Yi-Shiang Huang, John L Kelly, Abhay Pandit

Abstract

An animal model that allows for assessment of the degree of stretching or contraction of the implant area and the in vivo degradation properties of biological meshes is required to evaluate their performance in vivo. Adult New Zealand rabbits underwent full thickness subtotal unilateral rectus abdominis muscle excision and were reconstructed with the non-biodegradable Peri-Guard(®), Prolene(®) or biodegradable Surgisis(®) meshes. Following 8 weeks of recovery, the anterior abdominal wall tissue samples were collected for measurement of the implant dimensions. The Peri-Guard and Prolene meshes showed a slight and obvious shrinkage, respectively, whereas the Surgisis mesh showed stretching, resulting in hernia formation. Surgisis meshes showed in vivo biodegradation and increased collagen formation. This surgical rabbit model for abdominal wall defects is advantageous for evaluating the in vivo behaviour of surgical meshes. Implant area stretching and shrinkage were detected corresponding to mesh properties, and histological analysis and stereological methods supported these findings.

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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Materials Science 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 45%
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 01 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Tissue Engineering
#240
of 349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,322
of 422,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Tissue Engineering
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 349 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 422,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.