Mesh is used in 90% of abdominal hernia repair surgeries in the technologically-advanced world.

Research in our field, be it conducted by companies or by research centres, revolves around the need to create increasingly inert prosthetic materials that adapt to the abdominal wall and are also safe to use inside the abdominal cavity.

These materials also have to be able to provide lasting protection, however much resorption or remodelling they undergo.

Other factors taken into consideration by the surgeon when choosing the best material for an individual clinical case are its weight, texture, composition, resorbability (or otherwise), ease of handling, and cost.

Furthermore, it goes without saying that the choice of mesh for the individual patient should also be based not only on the surgeon’s own experience, but also (above all even) on the method to be used (open, laparoscopic or robotic), and therefore the site where it is to be positioned.

The opportunities offered by robotics seem to have totally revolutionised the IPOM placement concept, drastically reducing the use of this technique for example; at the same time, minimally-invasive hybrid techniques have revived the popularity of prostheses traditionally used in the open approach that had seemed consigned to the past.

Similar careful consideration should be given to how to fix the mesh and when not to fix it.

What all this clearly shows, once again, is that prolonged and rigorous follow ups are the only way to resolve the doubts and uncertainties faced by non-specialist and specialist surgeons planning abdominal repair procedures.

The only way we can really help to clear up these doubts is by striving to produce high-quality scientific papers that, primarily, prioritise the concept of follow up.