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

A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh. | LitMetric

A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh.

J Gastrointest Surg

Centre for 3D Models of Health and Disease, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Charles Bell House, Foley Street, London, W1W 7TY, UK.

Published: March 2022

Introduction: Mesh implants are regularly used to help repair both hiatus hernias (HH) and diaphragmatic hernias (DH). In vivo studies are used to test not only mesh safety, but increasingly comparative efficacy. Our work examines the field of in vivo mesh testing for HH and DH models to establish current practices and standards.

Method: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO. Medline and Embase databases were searched for relevant in vivo studies. Forty-four articles were identified and underwent abstract review, where 22 were excluded. Four further studies were excluded after full-text review-leaving 18 to undergo data extraction.

Results: Of 18 studies identified, 9 used an in vivo HH model and 9 a DH model. Five studies undertook mechanical testing on tissue samples-all uniaxial in nature. Testing strip widths ranged from 1-20 mm (median 3 mm). Testing speeds varied from 1.5-60 mm/minute. Upon histology, the most commonly assessed structural and cellular factors were neovascularisation and macrophages respectively (n = 9 each). Structural analysis was mostly qualitative, where cellular analysis was equally likely to be quantitative. Eleven studies assessed adhesion formation, of which 8 used one of four scoring systems. Eight studies measured mesh shrinkage.

Discussion: In vivo studies assessing mesh for HH and DH repair are uncommon. Within this relatively young field, we encourage surgical and materials testing institutions to discuss its standardisation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8927034PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05227-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

vivo studies
12
systematic review
8
studies
8
vivo
6
testing
6
mesh
6
review examining
4
examining experimental
4
experimental methodology
4
methodology vivo
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!