Cargando…
A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh
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 c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8927034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34935102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05227-3 |
_version_ | 1784670361180176384 |
---|---|
author | Whitehead-Clarke, Thomas Beynon, Victoria Banks, Jessica Karanjia, Rustam Mudera, Vivek Windsor, Alastair Kureshi, Alvena |
author_facet | Whitehead-Clarke, Thomas Beynon, Victoria Banks, Jessica Karanjia, Rustam Mudera, Vivek Windsor, Alastair Kureshi, Alvena |
author_sort | Whitehead-Clarke, Thomas |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11605-021-05227-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8927034 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89270342022-03-22 A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh Whitehead-Clarke, Thomas Beynon, Victoria Banks, Jessica Karanjia, Rustam Mudera, Vivek Windsor, Alastair Kureshi, Alvena J Gastrointest Surg Review Article 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11605-021-05227-3. Springer US 2021-12-21 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8927034/ /pubmed/34935102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05227-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Article Whitehead-Clarke, Thomas Beynon, Victoria Banks, Jessica Karanjia, Rustam Mudera, Vivek Windsor, Alastair Kureshi, Alvena A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh |
title | A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh |
title_full | A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh |
title_fullStr | A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh |
title_full_unstemmed | A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh |
title_short | A Systematic Review Examining the Experimental Methodology Behind In Vivo Testing of Hiatus Hernia and Diaphragmatic Hernia Mesh |
title_sort | systematic review examining the experimental methodology behind in vivo testing of hiatus hernia and diaphragmatic hernia mesh |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8927034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34935102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05227-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT whiteheadclarkethomas asystematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT beynonvictoria asystematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT banksjessica asystematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT karanjiarustam asystematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT muderavivek asystematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT windsoralastair asystematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT kureshialvena asystematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT whiteheadclarkethomas systematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT beynonvictoria systematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT banksjessica systematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT karanjiarustam systematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT muderavivek systematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT windsoralastair systematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh AT kureshialvena systematicreviewexaminingtheexperimentalmethodologybehindinvivotestingofhiatusherniaanddiaphragmaticherniamesh |