Anisotropic evaluation of synthetic surgical meshes
- 417 Downloads
The material properties of meshes used in hernia repair contribute to the overall mechanical behavior of the repair. The anisotropic potential of synthetic meshes, representing a difference in material properties (e.g., elasticity) in different material axes, is not well defined to date. Haphazard orientation of anisotropic mesh material can contribute to inconsistent surgical outcomes. We aimed to characterize and compare anisotropic properties of commonly used synthetic meshes.
Six different polypropylene (Trelex®, ProLite™, Ultrapro™), polyester (Parietex™), and PTFE-based (Dualmesh®, Infinit) synthetic meshes were selected. Longitudinal and transverse axes were defined for each mesh, and samples were cut in each axis orientation. Samples underwent uniaxial tensile testing, from which the elastic modulus (E) in each axis was determined. The degree of anisotropy (λ) was calculated as a logarithmic expression of the ratio between the elastic modulus in each axis.
Five of six meshes displayed significant anisotropic behavior. Ultrapro™ and Infinit exhibited approximately 12- and 20-fold differences between perpendicular axes, respectively. Trelex®, ProLite™, and Parietex™ were 2.3–2.4 times. Dualmesh® was the least anisotropic mesh, without marked difference between the axes.
Anisotropy of synthetic meshes has been underappreciated. In this study, we found striking differences between elastic properties of perpendicular axes for most commonly used synthetic meshes. Indiscriminate orientation of anisotropic mesh may adversely affect hernia repairs. Proper labeling of all implants by manufacturers should be mandatory. Understanding the specific anisotropic behavior of synthetic meshes should allow surgeons to employ rational implant orientation to maximize outcomes of hernia repair.
KeywordsAnisotropy Synthetic Mesh Hernia Biomechanical test
This study was funded by institutional support from the University of Connecticut Health Center.
Conflicts of interest
Dr. Y. Novitsky has received consulting and/or speaking fees from Ethicon Inc., W.L. Gore Inc., and Covidien. Mr. E. Saberski and Dr. S. Orenstein have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose for this study.
- 2.McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD001785Google Scholar
- 11.Beer FP, Johnston ER, DeWolf JT (2006) Mechanics of materials, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ozkaya N, Nordin M (1999) Fundamentals of Biomechanics: equilibrium, motion, and deformation, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 15.Anurov M, Titkova S, Oettinger A (2009) Effectiveness of experimental hernia repair depends on orientation of mesh implant with anisotropic structure. 4th International Hernia Congress: Joint Meeting of the AHS and EHS, Berlin, Germany, Hernia 13(Suppl 1)1:S14–15Google Scholar
- 16.Callister WD (2005) Materials science and engineering: an integrated approach, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar