Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Frequently, hernia repair requires polypropylene (PP) meshes, which carry a well-known adhesiogenic risk when placed in contact to the intestine. The aim of this experimental study in a rat model was to assess the role of some materials, when combined with PP, in preventing the adhesions' formation.
Materials And Methods: Sixty male Sprague-Dawley rats were assigned to five groups for intraperitoneal mesh placement: untreated PP, PP+polyurethane (PP+PU), PP+Surgisis (PP+SIS), PP+expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PP+ePTFE), and a control group without mesh. Twenty-one days and 3 and 6 months after the operation, an assessment of adhesion formation was performed, scoring adhesions in terms of extent and type and the adhesion index (AI; product of adhesions' extent and type).
Results: No significant difference was seen between PP+SIS, PP+PU, and control groups in adhesions extent/quality and in AI. The PP+SIS group had significantly lower adhesions' quality value and AI than PP+ePTFE. PP+PU had significantly lower adhesions' extent/quality value and AI than PP+ePTFE. The control group had adhesions with significantly lower extent/quality and AI than PP+ePTFE. The PP group had significantly more and denser adhesions, compared to PP+ePTFE, as well as a significantly higher AI.
Conclusions: Adhesions' incidence is reduced by using treated PP meshes. PP+PU and PP+SIS were superior to PP+ePTFE in adhesion prevention.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/lap.2008.0366 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!