-
3d mesh
Has anyone head of this type of mesh
? They refer to it as dynamic and not inducing scar tissue but rather healthier one….
-
4 Replies
-
I am thinking the one described here is more a plug really..
-
So what is the difference with respect to the other existing 3d meshes do you think? Btw the authors conducted animal testing before the trial which is already something. They seem to be saying that their 3d mesh moves and so the tissue that grows on it is not scar tissue, and there is no feeling of the mesh. So the other 3d meshes don’t move?🤔
-
What I found interesting is the claim that the tissue growing on their 3d scaffold is of higher quality than the standard meshes i.e. it is not scar tissue. If this is true I am wondering whether they could also use then a mesh that is reabsorbed (yes, my obsession:) in the end, although this is a 3d scaffold so I have no idea if this works similarly (or can in fact). It is interesting that Italy seems to have a very active community of researchers in the field of hernia surgery/treatment, albeit focused on mesh techniques (did not see pure tissue ones being explored)
-
Here is the link to more supporting data, from your paper. I have seen the device before.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405857219300658?via%3Dihub
They said that they followed up “every subsequent year” but I cannot find any discussion about the patients’ satisfaction with the procedure, beyond six months. Only the six month chart is shown.
“Postoperative follow-ups were carried out at 7 days, 15 days,
then at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 months and every subsequent year.”The paper starts with a very good overview of the problem and some good ideas, in words, about how to address them. But the final product is really just another device made from stiff polypropylene fibers. It should cause the same foreign body response and fibrosis as a flat piece of mesh, over time.
The primary author is the inventor of the device.
“However, a factual limitation of this study arises from possible
bias deriving from the correspondent author, who is the developer
of the implant and the related surgical technique. Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrated and discussed in the report seems to
adequately balance said perception”I think that the overview and ideas used at the start of the paper could be a great foundation for developing new products, if a group of people could get together who can think outside of the 510(k) process.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Good intentions.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by
Log in to reply.