Bioprosthetic tissue matrices in complex abdominal wall reconstruction
Broyles JM., Abt NB., Sacks JM., Butler CE.
Laboratory Study, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2013) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2013)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 25289285
- PMCID
- PMC4174111
- DOI
- 10.1097/gox.0000000000000036
- Citations
- 9
Abstract (original English)
Background Complex abdominal defects are difficult problems encountered by surgeons in multiple specialties. Although current evidence supports the primary repair of these defects with mesh reinforcement, it is unclear which mesh is superior for any given clinical scenario. The purpose of this review was to explore the characteristics of and clinical relevance behind bioprosthetic tissue matrices in an effort to better clarify their role in abdominal wall reconstruction. Methods We reviewed the peer-reviewed literature on the use of bioprosthetic mesh in human subjects. Basic science articles and large retrospective and prospective reviews were included in author's analysis. The clinical performance and characteristics of 13 bioprosthetic tissue matrices were evaluated. Results The majority of the products evaluated perform well in contaminated fields, where the risk of wound-healing difficulties is high. Clinical outcomes, which included infection, reherniation, and bulge formation, were variable, and the majority of the studies had a mean follow-up of less than 24 months. Conclusions Although bioprosthetic matrix has a multitude of indications within the growing field of abdominal wall reconstruction, the functionality, regenerative capacity, and long-term fate of these products have yet to be fully established. Furthermore, the clinical performance, indications, and contrain
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.