Ahmed M S Ibrahim1, Christina R Vargas2, Salih Colakoglu3, John T Nguyen1, Samuel J Lin1, Bernard T Lee1. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data on the mechanical properties of the adult human abdominal wall have been difficult to obtain rendering manufacture of the ideal mesh for ventral hernia repair a challenge. An ideal mesh would need to exhibit greater biomechanical strength and elasticity than that of the abdominal wall. The aim of this study is to quantitatively compare the biomechanical properties of the most commonly used synthetic and biologic meshes in ventral hernia repair and presents a comprehensive literature review. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database spanning articles from 1982 to 2012 including a review of company Web sites to identify all available information relating to the biomechanical properties of various synthetic and biologic meshes used in ventral hernia repair. RESULTS: There exist differences in the mechanical properties and the chemical nature of different meshes. In general, most synthetic materials have greater stiffness and elasticity than what is required for abdominal wall reconstruction; however, each exhibits unique properties that may be beneficial for clinical use. On the contrary, biologic meshes are more elastic but less stiff and with a lower tensile strength than their synthetic counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The current standard of practice for the treatment of ventral hernias is the use of permanent synthetic mesh material. Recently, biologic meshes have become more frequently used. Most meshes exhibit biomechanical properties over the known abdominal wall thresholds. Augmenting strength requires increasing amounts of material contributing to more stiffness and foreign body reaction, which is not necessarily an advantage. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
BACKGROUND: Data on the mechanical properties of the adult human abdominal wall have been difficult to obtain rendering manufacture of the ideal mesh for ventral hernia repair a challenge. An ideal mesh would need to exhibit greater biomechanical strength and elasticity than that of the abdominal wall. The aim of this study is to quantitatively compare the biomechanical properties of the most commonly used synthetic and biologic meshes in ventral hernia repair and presents a comprehensive literature review. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database spanning articles from 1982 to 2012 including a review of company Web sites to identify all available information relating to the biomechanical properties of various synthetic and biologic meshes used in ventral hernia repair. RESULTS: There exist differences in the mechanical properties and the chemical nature of different meshes. In general, most synthetic materials have greater stiffness and elasticity than what is required for abdominal wall reconstruction; however, each exhibits unique properties that may be beneficial for clinical use. On the contrary, biologic meshes are more elastic but less stiff and with a lower tensile strength than their synthetic counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The current standard of practice for the treatment of ventral hernias is the use of permanent synthetic mesh material. Recently, biologic meshes have become more frequently used. Most meshes exhibit biomechanical properties over the known abdominal wall thresholds. Augmenting strength requires increasing amounts of material contributing to more stiffness and foreign body reaction, which is not necessarily an advantage. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
Authors: Kevin Roberts; Jacob Schluns; Addison Walker; Jake D Jones; Kyle P Quinn; Jamie Hestekin; Jeffrey C Wolchok Journal: Biomed Mater Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 3.715
Authors: Cara K Black; Elizabeth G Zolper; Elliot T Walters; Jessica Wang; Jesus Martinez; Andrew Tran; Iram Naz; Vikas Kotha; Paul J Kim; Sarah R Sher; Karen K Evans Journal: Arch Plast Surg Date: 2019-09-15