Do's & Don'ts of Mesh Fabric

If you're an avid sports fan, a competing athlete, or a frequent gym-goer, chances are most of your workout apparel is made of mesh fabric. This fabric material is made of synthetic fiber, perfect for high-energy activities.

Because of its minuscule holes and light feel, this fabric is perfect for allowing your body to breathe while working up a sweat. Not to mention, the material is also quite durable and can withstand a lot of movement and wear and tear.

However, as great as mesh material fabrics are, they still require a certain level of care to keep them looking and feeling their best. Here are a few tips on how to take the best care of your mesh fabrics, along with some more information on the fabric:

More About Mesh Fabrics

As mentioned, mesh fabrics are made of synthetic materials, perfect for high-energy activities such as athletics and working out.

Other than sportswear, mesh fabrics are also typically used by many workers from the healthcare sector to make medical apparel such as scrubs and surgical gowns.

What Are the Different Types of Mesh Fabrics?

Different types of mesh fabric are available on the market. The most popular ones include:

Polyester Mesh Fabrics

Polyester mesh fabrics are one of the most commonly available mesh fabrics on the market. These fabrics are made from polyester threads created through a chemical reaction involving petroleum, air, and water, resulting in a polymer of polyester fibers.

This mesh material is popular for athletic wear as it is breathable and quick-drying. It is also known for its resistance to shrinking and stretching, making it last longer with proper care.

Its durability and water-repelling qualities make it the perfect mesh fabric for swimwear and outdoor apparel.

Nylon Mesh Fabrics

Another popular type of mesh material is nylon. Nylon is a synthetic polymer made from coal and petroleum, and it was first used as a replacement for silk in women's stockings.

This type of mesh fabric is also quite popular in athletics due to its elastic qualities. Nylon mesh fabrics are known for their resistance to wear and tear, making them quite durable.

This mesh material is commonly used in making protective suits and equipment for beekeepers. Nylon is also used to create delicate sewing garments like evening gowns.

As mentioned, both nylon and polyester mesh fabrics are commonly used in sportswear. However, nylon mesh has a higher heat resistance and a softer feel than polyester.

Power Mesh Fabrics

Power mesh is a specialized type of nylon mesh fabric with properties that make it ideal for compression garments. This mesh material is regularly used in lingerie, shapewear, sportswear, and even medical garments, providing excellent support and compression.

Its construction sets the difference between power mesh and other mesh fabrics. Power mesh is made with myriads of interlocking yarns to provide high compression levels. This makes the fabric quite solid and durable, perfect for garments that need to give a lot of support, such as sports bras.

This versatile material offers a high level of stretchability and recovery, with its nylon fiber content helping it retain its original shape and size once removed. It is also breathable and can wick away moisture, making it perfect for activewear.

Cotton Pique Fabrics

Cotton pique fabrics are mesh materials often used in polo shirts and other athletic apparel and are made from 100% cotton. The namesake of mesh fabric comes from the "piqued" or raised woven design resembling a waffle or honeycomb.

This fabric is known for its breathability and comfort, making it perfect for warm weather conditions. It is also exceptionally absorbent, making it ideal for sweaty activities.

Cotton pique mesh fabrics are also known for their resistance to shrinking and wrinkling. However, it is not as stretchy as other mesh fabrics and does not wick away moisture as well.

The raised woven design also helps to add texture and style to the garments. Cotton pique mesh fabrics are often used in sportswear and casual apparel.

With all mesh fabrics, it has holes, but the holes in the material are so tiny that they're almost invisible to the naked eye. Because of this, many do not categorize cotton pique as a genuine mesh fabric.

Tulle Fabrics

Tulle is a fine mesh fabric often used in wedding gowns, veils, and tutus. This mesh fabric gets its name from the city of Tulle in France, where it was first produced in the early 19th century.

In some cases, this mesh fabric can be made from silk to alleviate the environmental impact of nylon and polyester. However, the most common type of tulle is made from nylon or polyester.

Tulle is a smooth and airy mesh fabric that gets its stiffness from the tightly woven yarns. It is often used to create layers in garments, adding volume and texture to the look without adding much weight. Tailors can also use it to add fullness to skirts and dresses.

This mesh netting is quite stiff and does not have much stretch to it. It is also quite fragile and can easily tear, so users must handle it carefully. It is a popular mesh fabric in arts and crafts and sewing projects.

Reminders and Warnings of Mesh Fabrics

Caring for mesh fabrics is not tricky, but there are a few things you need to keep in mind to keep your mesh garments looking their best.

Taking care of a mesh fabric depends on its type and material. By following these simple tips, you can ensure that your mesh fabrics stay looking like new for longer.

With proper care, you can extend the fabric life of your mesh materials and enjoy them for many years to come!

Do:

Cold or Hand Wash

Considering that your mesh fabric is made from synthetic material, as a general rule, washing your mesh fabric clothing items in cold water by hand or on a gentle cycle will help prolong the life of your mesh fabrics.

If machine washing is your preference, consider using the gentle cycle on your washing machine. This will help to protect your mesh fabrics from being damaged in the wash. Always check the care label before washing any mesh fabric clothing item.

Regularly Brush Using a Soft-Bristled Brush

Brushing your mesh fabric items using a soft-bristled brush regularly is essential to remove any dirt or debris. This will also help keep the fabric looking new and prevent any pilling. This is best done to mesh fabrics with a stiff material (i.e., nylon and polyester).

It is vital to use gentle motions when cleaning your mesh fabric items. Pay close attention to the tiny holes in the fabric to avoid snagging on the netting.

Harsh scrubbing can damage the fragile fibers of your mesh netting, and this can cause the material to break down over time and become damaged.

Pre-Treat Harsh Stains

If you notice any tough or harsh stains on your mesh fabric items, it is crucial to pre-treat them as soon as possible. The sooner you treat a coloring, the easier it will be to remove.

Harsh stains can damage the delicate fibers of your mesh fabric, so it is best to take care of them immediately.

You can pre-treat stains on your mesh fabrics in a few different ways. One way is to create a paste using water and baking soda, and another is to use a diluted vinegar solution. You can also use a stain solution that you can get from the store.

Whichever method you choose, test it on an inconspicuous area of the fabric first to ensure it does not damage the mesh netting.

Store Folded

To prevent your mesh fabric items from being damaged, it is vital to store them properly. The best way to store mesh fabrics is to keep them folded or hang them up, which will help prevent creases or wrinkles from forming in the material.

It is also essential to ensure that your mesh fabrics are stored in a cool and dry place. An excellent way to store mesh fabrics is to keep them in a garment bag or folded in a drawer.

If you’re storing them in a closet, keep them away from heat sources such as radiators or vents.

Don't:

Apply Harsh Chemicals

You should never apply harsh chemicals to your mesh fabrics, such as bleach, fabric softener, or any other type of chemical cleaner. These harsh chemicals can damage the fragile fibers of your mesh fabric and shorten its lifespan.

If you need to clean a stain on your mesh fabric, it's best to pre-treat it with a gentle solution before washing it. When washing your mesh fabric items, it is essential to use a mild detergent.

Harsh chemicals and detergents can damage the natural fibers of your mesh fabric, causing it to break down over time. Always check the care label before using any detergent or cleaning to be safe.

Allow STAINS To Stay on the Fabric

Pay immediate attention to dirt, debris, and stains on your mesh fabric items. The longer these things are left on the fabric, the harder they will be to remove.

Allowing any dirty matter to stay on your mesh fabric for too long can damage the fabric's fibers and cause permanent stains.

Use Petrochemicals or Solvents in the Fabric

Never use petrochemicals or solvents on your mesh fabric items. This includes gasoline, oil, or any other type of flammable liquid.

These liquids can easily damage the fibers of your mesh fabric and cause irreparable damage. Always check the care label before using any cleaning agent to be safe.

Store Without Completely Drying the Fabric

After washing your mesh fabric clothing items, it's best to hang them up to dry. A clothesline or drying rack is the best way to protect your mesh fabrics from being damaged in the dryer.

If you choose to use a dryer, place it on a low setting or with no heat. High temperatures can affect the natural fibers of your mesh fabric, causing it to break down over time.

Before storing away your mesh materials, ensure that the fabric is thoroughly dry. Stowing your fabric while still wet can lead to mold, mildew, and other problems. Do not store your mesh fabric in a humid or damp area, as this can lead to damage.

It's All About the Fabric

When it comes to taking care of your mesh fabric items, it's all about the fabric. Different types of mesh fabric require additional care instructions, and it's crucial to always check the care label before washing or cleaning your mesh fabrics.

By following these simple tips, you can extend the lifespan of your mesh fabrics and keep them looking their best. With proper care and storage, your mesh fabrics can last for many years.

Search For Fabric: Your Reliable One-stop Fabric Shop

If you're looking for high-quality mesh fabrics, Search For Fabric is your one-stop shop. We offer a wide range of mesh fabrics that are perfect for various applications. From wedding dresses to costumes, we have the ideal material for your needs.

We also offer a wide range of other fabric types, including cotton, linen, wool, and more. We even offer sewing supplies and accessories to help you complete your projects.

Our team of experts is always available to help you choose the suitable material for your project.

Call us at (213) 623-2522 or email us at support@searchforfabric.com today to learn more about our products and services.

Abstract

Purpose

Controversy exists regarding the outcomes following ventral hernia repair with polypropylene (PP) or polyester (PET) mesh. Monofilament PP less frequently requires extraction in the setting of contamination compared to multifilament PET mesh. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical outcomes of ventral hernia repair with PP and PET mesh.

Patients and methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Ovid search platform. Criteria included ventral hernia repair publications using either PP or PET mesh with a minimum follow-up duration of one year. Included studies were subject to data extraction including mesh position, weight, recurrence rates, infection, and complications. Random effect meta-analysis was run to provide pooled event rate and 95% CI.

Results

Ninety-seven studies including a total of 10,022 patients were included in the final analysis. Hernia recurrence rates are similar (4.8%, 95% CI [3.5–6.5] vs 4.7%, 95% CI [3.7–6.0]) as well as mesh infection rates (3.5%, 95% CI [2.5–4.9] vs 5.0%, 95% CI [3.9–6.3]) between PET and PP, respectively. Mesh infections occurred less frequently in laparoscopic repair compared to open (1.6%, 95% CI [0.9–2.6] vs 5.2%, 95% CI [4.3–6.3]).

Conclusion

This study suggests that mesh material does not affect recurrence or infection in ventral hernia repair and that surgery can be safely performed with both PP and PET mesh. A laparoscopic approach is associated with a decreased infection rate compared to open repair independent of mesh type.

Keywords:

polyester, polypropylene, ventral hernia, recurrence, infection

Introduction

The safest and most effective implant for ventral hernia repair has been debated repeatedly since the advent of prosthetic mesh in the 1940s. The existing literature report varying results for infection rates and hernia recurrence with meshes placed in a myriad of positions. In particular, there has been longstanding controversy regarding the use of polypropylene (PP) versus polyester (PET) mesh. A landmark study in 1998 compared comparing hernia outcomes between PP, PET, and ePTFE meshes demonstrated a significantly greater incidence of enterocutaneous fistula formation, mesh infections, and recurrences with multifilament PET mesh compared to other materials.1 This paper launched a debate regarding the efficacy of PET mesh that has spanned decades, resulting in a shift toward PP and ePTFE meshes.

Subsequent studies reported good outcomes with low morbidity following PET mesh hernia repair.1,2 Placing PET mesh in an extraperitoneal location was identified as essential in the prevention of enterocutaneous fistulas.3 In the prior study, PET had been placed within the peritoneal cavity, with nothing to protect the viscera from contact with the mesh. In the largest retrospective review of PET mesh hernia repairs with retrorectus or preperitoneal positioning, the overall recurrence rate was 1.5% and complication rate of 6.3%.3,4

In the decades to follow, numerous mesh products have been developed, including coated and composite meshes that allow for intraperitoneal mesh placement while minimizing risk of erosion of mesh into viscera. Colon et al reported no difference in postoperative complications and recurrence rates at 12 months following laparoscopic ventral hernia repair between PET composite and ePTFE mesh materials.5 Advancements in engineering have also allowed for variations in mesh weight and pore size.6 Heavyweight (HW) meshes generally have smaller pore sizes, but greater tensile strength due to the material itself, which activates a profound tissue reaction and dense scarring.7 Smaller pore sizes may also limit bacterial clearance in the setting of infection. Alternatively, lighter weight products are reported to have greater tissue integration, more elasticity with retained tensile strength, and larger pore size meshes have greater likelihood to integrate in the setting of postoperative infections.7 The durability of lightweight (LW) mesh implanted in ventral hernia repairs has been debated repeatedly. However, multiple studies have found no difference in recurrence rate based on mesh weight with follow-up greater than 2 years.6,8–10 While most of the studies evaluating outcomes between LW and HW mesh evaluated PP materials, a 2015 study reported poor outcomes with LW PET mesh. In this study of 36 patients with LW PET mesh placed in the retro-rectus position, 8 (22%) recurrent hernias were identified. On reoperation, the authors reported that 7 of the 8 recurrences were due to a mechanical failure or fracturing of the mesh itself.11 This study further fueled the debate regarding the efficacy of both LW mesh materials and PET.

The majority of studies comparing mesh materials are limited in patient numbers and often have inadequate follow-up to accurately determine long-term outcomes. In an effort to determine if mesh weight or material impacted hernia outcomes, we performed a systematic literature review and descriptive meta-analysis of ventral and incisional hernia repair studies specifically focused on estimating the risk of recurrence and infection in ventral hernia repair using PP and PET mesh.

Materials and methods

Search criteria

A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Ovid search platform. This platform encompassed 12 databases: Journals@Ovid Full Text, EBM Reviews – Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews – ACP Journal Club, EBM Reviews – Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EBM Reviews – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBM Reviews – Cochrane Methodology Register, EBM Reviews – Health – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBM Reviews – Cochrane Methodology Register, EBM Reviews – Health Technology Assessment, EBM Reviews – NHS Economic Evaluation Database, BIOSIS Previews, Embase, Inspec, and MEDLINE.

Databases were searched using the keywords “ventral AND hernia AND mesh AND recurrence AND (placement OR overlap OR position)” and “Ventral hernia mesh repair.” The literature was searched for articles discussing polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polypropylene (PP) mesh used in ventral, incisional, or parastomal hernia procedures. Both generic PET/PP mesh terms and specific product terms were included in the search. No date filter was applied to this search.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies that met the above search criteria were considered for analysis. From these studies, those written in English or French, with a sample size of ≥25 patients, a mean follow-up ≥1 year, and an Oxford Classification of level 1, 2, or 3 were included in the final analysis. Studies that provided no clinical data or did not describe recurrence rate were excluded either for recurrence risk estimations. Additionally, studies that included Parietex™ and Parietene™ ProGrip™ self-gripping polyester (as the PLA grip provides fixation that can influence the recurrence results), studies that included Adhesix™ (that includes adherent properties) and studies with multiple meshes where it was not possible to clearly assign the results to the mesh were also excluded.

Data extraction

For comparative studies, each arm was assessed individually and inclusion/exclusion criteria were implemented for each arm. When prospective or retrospective papers reported different kinds of meshes, the subgroups were included only if the results were detailed enough to be able to assign the complications to different meshes with certainty and if each subgroup met inclusion criteria. When mesh weight was not described in the paper, but either the brand or the mesh was identified with certainty, mesh weight was obtained from the company website, brochures, or publications.

The extracted data included the following: First author, year of publication, mesh studied, mesh weight, material, manufacturer, surgical approach, number of patients, hernia type, Oxford classification, methodology, mesh positioning, fascial closure, number of hernias treated, mean follow-up, previous ventral repair, number of recurrences, number of mesh-related recurrences, number of non-mesh-related recurrences, number of unknown recurrences, patient comorbidities, and patient preoperative medical history. Mesh weight was considered to be the weight of the mesh following absorption of the composite component. A LW mesh is defined as a mesh weighing 35–50 g/cm2.12 A HW mesh is defined as any mesh above 50 g/cm2. Parameters with limited data were not analyzed.

Outcomes of interest

The primary outcome was to describe recurrence rates in ventral PET and PP hernia repair. The secondary outcome was to describe infection rates in ventral PET and PP hernia repair.

Statistical analysis

Primary and secondary outcomes were measured using incidence rate reported in individual groups from each single-arm study. Pooled estimation of risk was calculated using random effect model, as data come from literature review from heterogeneous and mainly non-randomized studies, using different methods and designs on various populations. An overlap between event rate confidence intervals from different groups suggests that there was no apparent trend in the results in favor of one group or the other. Sub-group analyses were performed on the basis of surgical approach (laparoscopic or open) and mesh weight (light or heavy). Summary of effect size and the associated forest plots were generated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2.2 (Biostat, Inc.; Englewood, NJ, USA). All data are reported as pooled estimations of risk for hernia recurrence or infection. Results obtained on less than 5 studies are not reported.

Discussion

Mesh materials differ in manufacturing process, composition, density, weave, and pore size. Despite these variations, there is no significant difference in recurrence or infection rates in ventral hernia repairs using either multifilament PET or monofilament PP mesh. Previously reported complications and variations in outcomes were not identified when comparing larger numbers of patients. Furthermore, there were no differences in recurrence rates or infections rates identified between mesh materials or within a subgroup analysis evaluating LW and HW meshes independently. Despite some variability in published recurrence rates among published studies, with occasional outliers, the rate of hernia recurrence for LW PET and LW PP is similar.11 Patient selection, hernia characteristics, and patient comorbidities are likely to impact hernia repair outcomes beyond the influence of the mesh material alone and are likely to contribute to the variability in recurrence rates among studies. Nevertheless, mesh materials must have strength great enough to withstand physiologic intra-abdominal pressures, particularly when utilized as a bridge.6 The etiologies of primary mesh failure with central hernia recurrence include mesh degradation, trauma during implantation, or use in situations in which abdominal forces exceed mesh strength.

Hernia repair techniques are likely to impact hernia outcomes as well. Prior studies have demonstrated differences in hernia reoperation rates based upon mesh location with retro-rectus meshes demonstrating the lowest reoperation rates.13 Mesh location is equally important to mesh choice. This study was not able to evaluate the impact of mesh location on hernia repair outcomes due to the inability to clearly detect mesh location in the majority of patients.

Laparoscopic hernia repair has been previously shown to be associated with a reduced incidence of mesh infections with similar hernia recurrence rates to open hernia repair.14 Our overall infection rate using PET and PP mesh laparoscopically was 1%, 95% [0.5–2.2] and 2.2%, 95% [1.1–4.4], respectively, with overlapping confidence intervals. A comparative analysis of 79 laparoscopic PET mesh hernia repairs and 30 open extraperitoneal retrorectus PET mesh repairs reported infection rates less than 1% in laparoscopic cases and 13% for open procedures.15 Regardless of mesh type, laparoscopic repairs are associated with fewer mesh infections than open repairs, likely related to the avoidance of a laparotomy incision directly overlying the mesh.

The inherent limitations of this study are related to the quality and heterogeneity (in terms of design, follow-up, population, period, etc.) of the included studies. Studies including randomized controlled trial but also single-arm cohort studies with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included to capture the incidence of both hernia recurrence and mesh infection. Prior studies have demonstrated that the majority of hernias occur within 2 years, and recurrence rates continue to increase beyond the 2-year postoperative interval.16 In the current analysis, inclusion of studies with follow-up duration of 1 year may underestimate the incidence of long-term recurrence. However, the similarity in recurrences seen in each of the mesh type would lead the authors to believe that long-term recurrence rates would also be similar. Publications including results in figure form without infection or recurrence rates stated within the text of the publication were not included within the analysis. Analyses for mesh brand, weight, or surgical approach were not performed due to insufficient number of studies. Various mesh brands are included in analyses, grouped by material type and mesh weight. Although similarity exists between mesh materials, the manufacturing processes for each product include unique weaves, pore size, and properties that may impact outcomes. Furthermore, this study was unable to evaluate the impact of mesh position location upon outcomes. Variability in reporting of mesh location in the included studies did not allow for us to evaluate the impact of mesh location upon hernia recurrences based upon mesh type. Accordingly, this study was unable to assess the impact of mesh location upon hernia mesh infection rates. The impact of factors such as undermining skin flaps or subcutaneous mesh placement, which has been associated with poor outcomes, could not be addressed.17 Additional known risk factors for hernia recurrence and complications including smoking status, history of COPD, diabetes, and BMI were unable to be addressed in this review due to inconsistent reporting. Finally, the literature review was quality controlled, and some manuscripts were excluded from using the same data. However, the analysis datasets may contain some patient data in duplicate though the authors believe this would only be in a very limited number of patients.

Conclusion

Ventral hernia repairs can be safely performed using either monofilament PP or multifilament PET mesh with comparable rates of mesh infection and hernia recurrences. Each device has characteristics that require the identification of proper surgical technique (ie, laparoscopic versus open: retrorectus versus underlay or onlay) in an effort to balance the risk of infection and recurrence. Mesh selection should be tailored to each patient, subpopulation, and situation, with a continuation of head-to-head device trials to garner more long-term data.

Supplementary materials

Table S1

First authorYearMaterialMesh weightSurgical approachNumber of patientsMean follow-up (months)Number of recurrencesNumber of mesh-related recurrencesNumber of infectionsAdloff M1987PETLIGHTOPEN13096667Ahmad M2003PPHEAVYOPEN2726001Alkhoury F2011PPHEAVYLAP141407–4Ammaturo C2004PETHEAVY–26151––Ammaturo C2010PETHEAVYOPEN10342614Armananzas L2014PPHEAVYLAP53122–0Arnaud J2003PETHEAVYLAP51121––Arroyo S A2002PP–OPEN213642–3Balique2005PETHEAVYOPEN51481114Bansal V2011PP–LAP3516.3000Basoglu2004PETLIGHTOPEN6152.86–6Becouarn1996PETLIGHTOPEN16036704Bensaadi H2014PPLIGHTOPEN41366–2Berrevoet F2010PP–OPEN205367–12Berrevoet F2011PPLIGHTOPEN5648.82–0Berrevoet F2009PPLIGHTLAP114274––Bessa S2013PPHEAVYOPEN8049.91––Bhanot P2013PPLIGHTLAP10050000Bingener J2004PPHEAVYLAP30141–0Bracci F2008PP–OPEN2624000Briennon2011PETHEAVYOPEN28012–1089012Champetier1978PETLIGHTOPEN512110–Champetier1990PETLIGHTOPEN54425–4Chelala E2010PETHEAVYLAP608522590Chowbey P2000PP–LAP20234.82–5Colon MJ2011PETHEAVYLAP50121–0Conze2005PETLIGHTOPEN34245–3de Ruiter P2005PP–OPEN46607–3del Pozo M2003PPHEAVYOPEN3223.6000Eriksen2011PETHEAVYLAP1916001Fei Y2012PPLIGHTOPEN2614.5001Gherardi2013PETHEAVYLAP11866400Ghnnam WM2009PPHEAVYOPEN2930002Gleysteen J2009PPHEAVYOPEN756615–9Gomez R2001PPHEAVYOPEN374266–Gronnier C2012PPHEAVYOPEN12124.617–12Gutierrez de la P C2003PPHEAVYOPEN5036001Guzman-Valdivia G2008PPLIGHTOPEN25122–2Guzman-Valdivia G2001PP–OPEN502400–Hadi H2006PPLIGHTOPEN51151–2Hamy2003PETLIGHTOPEN35097.2111114Han J2007PPHEAVYOPEN48322––Hasbahceci M2014PP–OPEN2542.61–0Iversen E2010PPLIGHTOPEN15215.64–4Janes A2004PPLIGHTOPEN27241–0Johanet2005PETHEAVYOPEN122123–2Korenkov M2002PPHEAVYOPEN39163–4Kulacoglu H2012PP–OPEN10012003Lahon2009PETHEAVYLAP71131301Lepère M2008PETHEAVYLAP29121––Lermite E2004PETHEAVYLAP2633001Lewis R1984PPHEAVYOPEN50303–2Liu F2011PPLIGHTOPEN3628004Luijendijk R2000PPHEAVYOPEN8426195–Machairas2004PETLIGHTOPEN4354.4433Mahmoud Uslu H2006PPHEAVYOPEN291556–8Maman D2012PP–OPEN404000–Martin-Duce A2001PPHEAVYOPEN284724–11Mathonnet1998PETLIGHTOPEN99124–6McCarthy JD1981PPHEAVYOPEN25482–1Mehrabi M2010PETLIGHTOPEN17696223Moreno-Egea2004PETHEAVYLAP8642330Moreno-Egea2004PETHEAVYLAP127645–1Moreno-Egea2008PETHEAVYLAP5518110Moreno-Egea2013PETHEAVYLAP512400–Moreno-Egea A2010PPLIGHTOPEN5048003Murtaza, B2009PP–OPEN3315.78001Nardi MJ2012PETHEAVYLAP87122–1Notash2007PETLIGHTOPEN5167.64––Novitsky Y2006PP–OPEN12828.1404Olmi S2006PETHEAVYLAP178294–1Paajanen H2004PPHEAVYOPEN84364––Petersen S2004PPHEAVYOPEN130205–6Piardi T2010PP–OPEN25751––Poelman, M2010PPHEAVY–1016416–22Poghosyan T2012PETLIGHTOPEN26258882Prasad P2011PP–LAP6822.72–0Qadri S2010PP–OPEN40261–6Quarmby C2001PPHEAVYOPEN3235.41–9Rives1985PETLIGHTOPEN218367018Rosen MR2014PETLIGHTOPEN361388–Rosen MJ2009PETHEAVY–109143–5Rosenberg J2008PPLIGHTLAP4917001Sauerland S2005PPHEAVYOPEN74604–2Schmidbauer S2005PPHEAVYOPEN69922–2Shukla V2005PP–OPEN5537002Steele S2003PP–OPEN5850.615–2Stoikes N2013PP–OPEN5019.5003Sugerman H1996PPHEAVYOPEN98204–17Trivellini G2001PP–OPEN27032.51–1van’t R2002PPHEAVYLAP25164–1Veyrie N2013PETLIGHTOPEN61473–0Vijayasekar C2008PP–OPEN42314–1Vychnevskaia K2010PPLIGHTOPEN10128.52––Welty G2001PPHEAVYOPEN1152411––Wheeler2009PETLIGHTOPEN90466–10Yildirim M2010PPHEAVYOPEN2528003Open in a separate window

Acknowledgments

Medical writing and editorial support was provided by Nicholas Paquette, PhD of Medtronic based on content and conclusions determined by the authors. The abstract of this paper was presented at the American Hernia Society 2016 and 36th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society conferences as poster presentations. The posters’ abstracts were published in the 18th Annual Hernia Repair and Program and Abstracts 36th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society Palm Beach, Florida, May 18-21, 2016.

Disclosure

PB and ML are both employed by Medtronic (Trevoux, France; formerly Covidien). PB also reports being a medtronic employee. This literature review is comparing mesh materials, medtronic like other manufacturers is selling Polypropylene and polyester meshes. Dr Scott Roth reports grants, personal fees from Bard, personal fees from Allergan, stock options from Miromatrix, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees from Bard, personal fees from Allergan, stock options from Miromatrix, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.