For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
36
views
Article has an altmetric score of 7
22
references
 Top references
cited by
31
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      464
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes

      case-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Effective repair of hernia is a difficult task. There have been many advances in hernia repair techniques over the past 50 years, but new strategies must be considered to enhance the success of herniorrhaphy.

          Discussion

          At the 30th International Congress of the European Hernia Society, nine experts in hernia repair and experimental mesh evaluation participated in a roundtable discussion about today’s unmet needs in hernia repair, including what constitutes an “ideal” hernia repair and the portfolio of “ideal” mesh prostheses. Defining characteristics of lightweight mesh, mesh alternatives, the surgeon’s role in hernia repair, adverse events, the unmet requirements for today’s hernia repair, and optimized animal models were among the topics discussed.

          Conclusion

          The ideal mesh’s construction is still in progress, but greater understanding of its critical characteristics was explored. It is hoped that these suggestions will lead to the development of improved hernia treatments and a maximally effective portfolio of hernia mesh prostheses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery

          P Amid (1997)
          Article 0 comments Cited 71 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 240
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of generic versus specific quality-of-life scales for mesh hernia repairs.

            Amy Lincourt, W. W. Hope, Yuri W Novitsky … (2008)
            With the use of mesh shown to considerably reduce recurrence rates for hernia repair and the subsequent improvement in clinical outcomes, focus has now been placed on quality-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing these repairs, specifically, as they relate to the mesh prosthesis. Traditionally, quality of life after hernia surgery, like many other medical conditions, has been tested using the generic SF-36 survey. The SF-36 quality-of-life survey, although well studied and validated, may not be ideal for patients undergoing hernia repairs. We propose a new quality-of-life survey, the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS), pertaining specifically to patients undergoing hernia repair with mesh; our goal was to test the validity and reliability of this survey. The CCS questionnaire was mailed to 1,048 patients to assess its acceptability, responsiveness, and psychometric properties. The survey sample included patients who were at least 6 months out after hernia repair with mesh. Patients were asked to fill out the CCS and the generic SF-36 questionnaires, four questions comparing the two surveys, and their overall satisfaction relating to their hernia repair and mesh. The reliability of the CCS was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.97). Test-retest validity was supported by the correlation found between two different administrations of the CCS; both Spearman's correlation coefficient and the kappa coefficient were important for each question of the CCS. Assessment of its discriminant validity showed that both the mean and median scores for satisfied patients were considerably lower than those for dissatisfied patients. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by the marked correlations found between the CCS and SF-36 questionnaire scales. When comparing the two surveys, 72% of patients preferred the CCS questionnaire, 80% believed it was easier to understand, 66% thought it was more reflective of their condition, and 69% said they would rather fill it out over the SF-36. The CCS better assesses quality of life and satisfaction of patients who have undergone surgical hernia repair than the generic SF-36.
            Article 0 comments Cited 59 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 3
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair.

              Bernd Klosterhalfen, Karsten Junge, Uwe Klinge (2004)
              In modern hernia surgery, there are two competing mesh concepts which often lead to controversial discussions, on the one hand the heavyweight small porous model and on the other, the lightweight large porous hypothesis. The present review illustrates the rationale of both mesh concepts and compares experimental data with the first clinical data available. In summary, the lightweight large porous mesh philosophy takes into consideration all of the recent data regarding physiology and mechanics of the abdominal wall and inguinal region. Furthermore, the new mesh concept reveals an optimized foreign body reaction based on reduced amounts of mesh material and, in particular, a significantly decreased surface area in contact with the recipient host tissues by the large porous model. Finally, recent data demonstrate that alterations in the extracellular matrix of hernia patients play a crucial role in the development of hernia recurrence. In particular, long-term recurrences months or years after surgery and implantation of mesh can be explained by the extracellular matrix hypothesis. However, if the altered extracellular matrix proves to be the weak area, the decisive question is whether the amount of material as well as mechanical and tensile strength of the surgical mesh are really of significant importance for the development of recurrent hernia. All experimental evidence and first clinical data indicate the superiority of the lightweight large porous mesh concept with regard to a reduced number of long-term complications and particularly, increased comfort and quality of life after hernia repair.
              Article 0 comments Cited 59 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 7
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                : +46-8-55024101 , Sven.Bringman@ki.se
                : +49-241-8089332 , jconze@ukaachen.de
                : +39-33-97077288 , Diego.Cuccurullo@ospedalemonaldi.it
                : +32-16-344215 , Jan.Deprest@uzleuven.be
                : +49-241-8089500 , kjunge@ukaachen.de
                : +49-241-301720 , bernd.klosterhalfen@web.de
                : +1-561-3952626 , parra11@bellsouth.net
                : +1-573-8825609 , ramshawb@health.missouri.edu
                : +49-241-8089332 , VSchumpelick@ukaachen.de
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Hernia
                Title: Hernia
                Publisher: Springer-Verlag (Paris )
                ISSN (Print): 1265-4906
                ISSN (Electronic): 1248-9204
                Publication date (Electronic): 11 December 2009
                Publication date PMC-release: 11 December 2009
                Publication date (Print): February 2010
                Volume: 14
                Issue: 1
                Pages: 81-87
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, Clintec, Karolinska Institutet, Södertälje Hospital, 152 86 Södertälje, Sweden
                [2 ]Chirurgische Universitätsklinik u. Poliklinik der RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
                [3 ]Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Monaldi Hospital, Via Cilea 136, 80127 Naples, Italy
                [4 ]Pelvic Floor Unit, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, RWTH Aachen, University Hospital Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
                [6 ]Institut für Pathologie, Krankenhaus Düren gem. GmbH, Roonstrasse 30, 52351 Düren, Germany
                [7 ]Surgical Associates of Palm Beach County, 800 Meadows Road, Boca Raton, FL 33486 USA
                [8 ]Division of General Surgery, University of Missouri, MC4144 McHaney Hall, Columbia, MO 655212 USA
                [9 ]Department of Surgery, Medical Faculty, Rheinish-Westphalian Technical University, 52074 Aachen, Germany
                Article
                Publisher ID: 587
                DOI: 10.1007/s10029-009-0587-x
                PMC ID: 2815300
                PubMed ID: 20012333
                SO-VID: 4cb01b44-5688-47c6-a3a3-d4f34f706c5d
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2009
                History
                Date received : 1 May 2009
                Date accepted : 6 November 2009
                Categories
                Subject: Congress Report
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © Springer-Verlag 2010

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Keywords: prosthesis design,complications,surgical mesh,operative surgical procedure,animal models
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Keywords: prosthesis design, complications, surgical mesh, operative surgical procedure, animal models

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content464

                See all similar

                Cited by29

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors156

                See all reference authors