Advertisement

Hernia

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

Mesh terminology 101

  • W. S. CobbEmail author
  • R. M. Peindl
  • M. Zerey
  • A. M. Carbonell
  • B. T. Heniford
Review

Abstract

In any collaborative endeavor, when fields like medicine and bioengineering overlap, the proper use of technical vocabulary takes on added importance. It is important that scientists and clinicians, while coming from different backgrounds and educational systems, agree upon and utilize a common language based on mutually understood concepts and definitions. Regarding biomaterial testing applications, numerous terms are used to describe a wide variety of material behaviors when test specimens are subjected to mechanical, chemical, electrical and thermal stressors. In this discussion we will limit ourselves to the mechanical properties of materials which are utilized for soft tissue or fascial-based repairs. Following a literature search combining the keywords surgical mesh and biomaterials testing, common terms used to describe the mechanical properties of mesh were selected. Our analysis seeks to define the following terms and describe their applicability within the context of biomaterials for hernia repair: elasticity, stiffness, flexibility, tensile strength, distension, deformation, bending stiffness, and compliance. Unfortunately, in the technical literature, terms are often altered or extrapolated without adequate explanation. In other cases, related but technically different terms are mistakenly used interchangeably. With the mounting interest in biomaterials for the use in repair of abdominal wall defects, there is a need to standardize the terminology used to describe the biomechanical properties of mesh.

Keywords

Biomaterials Surgical mesh Mechanical testing Terminology Hernia 

References

  1. 1.
    Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW, Hop W, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk E, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    EU Hernia Trialist Collaboration (2000) Mesh compared with non-mesh methods on open groin hernia repair. Systematic review of randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg 87:854–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Debord JR (1998) The historical development of prosthetics in hernia surgery. Surg Clin North Am 78:973–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stoppa RE (1989) The treatment of complicated groin and incisional hernias. World J Surg 13:545–554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Society for Testing and Materials. http://www.astm.org
  6. 6.
    Park JB (1992) Characterization of materials. In: Park JB, Lakes RS (eds) Biomaterials: an introduction. Plenum Press, New York, pp 29–62Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chao EYS, Aro HT (1991) Biomechanics of fracture fixation. In: Mow VC, Hayes WC (eds) Basic orthopaedic biomechanics. Raven Press, New York, pp 330–333Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carew EO, Cooke FW, Lemons JE, Ratner BD, Vesely I, Vogler E (2004) Properties of materials. In: Ratner BD et al (eds) Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine. Elsevier Academic Press, Oxford, pp 23–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. S. Cobb
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. M. Peindl
    • 2
  • M. Zerey
    • 2
  • A. M. Carbonell
    • 1
  • B. T. Heniford
    • 2
  1. 1.Minimally Invasive Surgical ServicesGreenville Hospital System University Medical GroupGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations