<i>In vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i> characterization of a fully resorbable and composite surgical mesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fully resorbable and composite synthetic meshes are intended to provide advantages over nonabsorbable synthetic meshes, such as minimization of visceral adhesions and improved biocompatibility, but the inflammatory response to these materials has not previously been fully characterized. We compared resorbable and composite synthetic meshes using in vitro characterization and evaluated the host response in a nonhuman primate acute abdominal wall defect. After a 2-week in vitro incubation, resorbable synthetic mesh mechanical strength decreased to 0.12 ± 0.09 N (0.25% of initial strength), which preceded acidification and a fractured morphology at 1 month. The composite synthetic mesh strength decreased to 10.0 ± 3.2 N (41.1% of initial strength), coincident with morphological changes. In vivo, resorbable synthetic mesh elicited an intense yet transient foreign-body response, with macrophages and myofibroblasts persisting through 3 months of implantation. At 6 months, resorbable synthetic mesh was undetectable and the mesh–host tissue interface strength (14.7 ± 7.9 N) was equivalent to that of primary repair (21.4 ± 4.9 N). The composite synthetic mesh elicited a significant foreign-body response following 1 month of implantation. By 3 months, the composite synthetic mesh resorbable films had fully degraded, with foreign-body reaction localized to polypropylene fibers. By 6 months, macrophages had surrounded these polypropylene fibers, with a myofibroblast-positive capsule encircling a macrophage-rich layer. Resorbable and composite synthetic meshes may ultimately not be the most ideal biomaterials in situations where the biological response is expected to lead to a regeneration of host soft tissues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".