The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Properties of Meshes used in Hernia Repair: A Comprehensive Review of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“As a result, uncrosslinked ECM scaffolds are a risky option in scenarios where a challenging mechanical load is required, such as tendon augmentation [68,[204][205][206] or ventral hernia repair [207,208], leading to bulging or mechanical failure [191].”
From Immune Response to Extracellular Matrix Bioscaffolds: A Comprehensive Review (2025) · cites this paper as [208]
Citations
The citation lists are queued
They are fetched later and appear here then.
Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Ibrahim, A., Vargas, C., Colakoglu, S., Nguyen, J., Lin, S., & Lee, B.
- Affiliations
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Bernard
- Venue
- Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2014-09-05
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 083-094
- ISSN
- 0743-684X (ISSN-L)
- 1098-8947
- OpenAlex
- W2334398443
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Sutures and Adhesives
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Stoma care and complications
- Keywords
- ventral hernia repair, hernia mesh, synthetic mesh, biological mesh, abdominal wall biomechanics, mesh stiffness, tensile strength, abdominal wall reconstruction, foreign body reaction
- MeSH terms
- Biocompatible Materials, Biomechanical Phenomena, Hernia, Ventral, Humans, Materials Testing, Surface Properties, Surgical Mesh, Tensile Strength
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: Properties of Meshes used in Hernia Repair: A Comprehensive Review of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-0034-1376886
- The paper
- Ibrahim, A., Vargas, C., Colakoglu, S., Nguyen, J., Lin, S., & Lee, B. (2014). Properties of Meshes used in Hernia Repair: A Comprehensive Review of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes. Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1376886
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.