Literature DB >> 17372664

Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response.

Grigoris Chatzimavroudis, Basilis Papaziogas, Ioannis Koutelidakis, Konstantinos Atmatzidis.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2007        PMID： 17372664     DOI： 10.1007/s00268-006-0785-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN： 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


× No keyword cloud information.
  4 in total

1.  Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response.

Authors:  Dirk Weyhe; Inge Schmitz; Orlin Belyaev; Robert Grabs; Klaus-Michael Müller; Waldemar Uhl; Volker Zumtobel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Functional and morphological evaluation of a low-weight, monofilament polypropylene mesh for hernia repair.

Authors:  U Klinge; K Junge; M Stumpf; A P Ottinger AP; B Klosterhalfen
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  2002

3.  Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia.

Authors:  S Schmidbauer; R Ladurner; K K Hallfeldt; Thomas Mussack
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2005-06-22       Impact factor: 2.175

4.  Polypropylene in the intra-abdominal position: influence of pore size and surface area.

Authors:  J Conze; R Rosch; U Klinge; C Weiss; M Anurov; S Titkowa; A Oettinger; V Schumpelick
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.739
  4 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Surgical mesh for ventral incisional hernia repairs: Understanding mesh design.

Authors:  Ali Rastegarpour; Michael Cheung; Madhurima Vardhan; Mohamed M Ibrahim; Charles E Butler; Howard Levinson
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 0.947
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.