A PHP Error was encountered

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

Peritoneal adhesions to prosthetic materials: an experimental comparative study of treated and untreated polypropylene meshes placed in the abdominal cavity. | LitMetric

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.2008.0366DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

polypropylene meshes
8
pp+eptfe control
8
control group
8
lower adhesions'
8
extent/quality pp+eptfe
8
pp+eptfe
6
adhesions'
5
peritoneal adhesions
4
adhesions prosthetic
4
prosthetic materials
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!