English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

OBJETIVO: Comparar uma malha comercial de poliéster com o pericárdio bovino preservado em glicerina na reconstituição de defeitos da parede abdominal. MÉTODOS: Foram utilizados 30 ratos, divididos em dois grupos eqüitativos. Efetuou-se uma excisão retangular de 2,5 x 2 cm, incluindo toda a musculatura abdominal e peritônio. No grupo I a parede abdominal foi reparada com malha de poliéster e no grupo II com pericárdio bovino conservado em glicerina. Os animais foram sacrificados aos 15, 60 e 90 dias de pós-operatório, sendo o local cirúrgico avaliado macroscópica e histologicamente. RESULTADOS: Os animais do grupo I apresentaram aderências mais severas e em maior número quando comparados aos do grupo II; porém, sem comprometimento funcional. A análise histológica revelou incorporação dos tecidos aos implantes, com maior resposta fibroblástica nos animais do grupo I. CONCLUSÃO: A malha de poliéster oferece maior resistência estrutural e resposta fibroblástica mais intensa; contudo, promove grande quantidade de aderências às vísceras abdominais, quando comparada ao pericárdio bovino. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare polyester mesh and glycerin preserved bovine pericardium for the repair of abdominal wall defects. METHODS: Thirty rats divided into two equal experimental groups were used. A 2.5 x 2 cm rectangular defect including all abdominal muscles and peritoneum was performed. The defect was reconstructed using polyester mesh in group I and glycerin preserved bovine pericardium in group II. The animals were submitted to euthanasia at 15, 60 and 90 days postoperatively, and the surgical area was evaluated by macroscopic and microscopic examination. RESULTS: The animals of the Group I had more abdominal adhesions and those were more severe than the animals of the Group II. The microscopic examination showed incorporation of the tissues in the implants with accentuated fibroblastic reaction in the animals of the group I. CONCLUSION: The polyester mesh offers more structural resistance and more fibroblastic response; however, leads to greater amount of abdominal viscera adhesions when compared to preserved bovine pericardium

Comparação entre pericárdio bovino preservado em glicerina e malha de poliéster no reparo de falhas da parede abdominal em ratos