| Title |
Regeneration of Abdominal Wall Aponeurosis: New Dimension in Marlex Peritoneal Sandwich Repair of Incisional Hernia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, May 1999
|
| DOI | 10.1007/pl00012326 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B.G. Matapurkar, A. Bhargave, Leelawathi Dawson, B. Sonal |
| Abstract |
Loss of abdominal wall substance is a major cause of incisional hernia formation. It makes repair of this iatrogenic human ailment a difficult surgical problem. The abdominal wall substance loss has compelled the world's surgical community dealing with this condition to substantiate the repair with extra material such as skin, fascia, wire mesh, and lately biocompatible synthetic mesh. Even though the synthetic mesh is compatible and well tolerated by body tissues, it is not without complications. Regenerative repair in the region of the abdominal wall with substance loss is probably the best repair if it can be achieved. With reasonable success in animal experiments and the positive regenerative capacity of stem cells to transform the peritoneum into an aponeurotic layer, the new technique using a Marlex peritoneal sandwich for repair of large incisional hernias was attempted but was not reported in the article published in the World Journal of Surgery in 1991. The present study is based on experiments on seven mongrel dogs. A suitable embryonal segment of autogenous peritoneum was excised and transferred to the rectus sheath region. The gross appearance of the grafted membrane 3 months after operation revealed tough, thick tissue formation. The histology confirmed the presence of collagen fiber tissue in layers similar to the aponeurosis in the grafted peritoneal membrane. The use of this regeneration in the Marlex peritoneal sandwich technique of repair of large incisional hernias and the scientific rationale of tissue regeneration by desired metaplasia is discussed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 March 2021.
All research outputs
#8,386,799
of 25,059,640 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,622
of 4,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,596
of 36,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,059,640 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 36,023 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.