Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mechanical properties of the abdominal wall and biomaterials utilized for hernia repair

Open access
Deeken, Corey R., Lake, Spencer P.·2017·Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

Abstract

Abdominal wall hernias are one of the most common and long-standing surgical applications for biomaterials engineering. Yet, despite over 50 years of standard use of hernia repair materials, revision surgery is still required in nearly one third of patients due to hernia recurrence. To date, hernia mesh designs have focused on maximizing tensile strength to prevent structural failure of the implant. However, most recurrences occur at the biomaterial-tissue interface. There is a fundamental gap in understanding the degree to which a mechanical mismatch between hernia repair materials and host tissue contributes to failure at this interface. This review summarizes the current literature related to the anatomy and mechanics of both human and animal abdominal wall tissues, as well as the mechanical properties of many commonly-utilized hernia repair materials. The studies reviewed here reported greater compliance of the linea alba, larger strains for the intact abdominal wall, and greater stiffness for the rectus sheath and umbilical fascia when the tissues were loaded in the longitudinal direction compared to transverse. Additionally, greater stresses were observed in the linea alba when loaded in the transverse direction compared to longitudinal. Given these trends, a few recommendations can be made regarding orientation of mesh. The most compliant axis of the biomaterial should be oriented in the cranio-caudal (longitudinal) direction, and the strongest axis of the biomaterial should be oriented in the medial-lateral (transverse) direction. The human abdominal wall is also anisotropic, with anisotropy ratios as high as 8-9 reported for the human linea alba. Current biomaterial designs exhibit anisotropy ratios in the range of 1-3, and it is unclear whether an ideal ratio exists for optimal match between mesh and tissue. This is likely dependent on implantation location as the linea alba, rectus sheath, and other tissues of the abdominal wall exhibit different characteristics. Given the number of unknowns yet to be addressed by studies of the human abdominal wall, it is unlikely that any single biomaterial design currently encompasses all of the ideal features identified. More data on the mechanical properties of the abdominal wall will be needed to establish a full set of guidelines for ideal mesh mechanics including strength, compliance, anisotropy, nonlinearity and hysteresis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.008

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Deeken, C. R., & Lake, S. P.
Venue
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
74
Pages
411-427
ISSN
1751-6161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2611041248
Cited by
258
References
63
FWCI
17.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanical properties of the abdominal wall and biomaterials utilized for hernia repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.008
The paper
Deeken, C. R., & Lake, S. P. (2017). Mechanical properties of the abdominal wall and biomaterials utilized for hernia repair. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.