A review of recent developments of polypropylene surgical mesh for hernia repair

“Functional upcycling” of polymer waste towards the design of new materials

“…338 To avoid overabundant citations, we refer to recent reviews dedicated to preparing PP-based fibers with improved properties. [338][339][340][341][342][343][344] 2.4.3. Conclusions.…”

Mechanical Properties of Smart Polypropylene Meshes: Effects of Mesh Architecture, Plasma Treatment, Thermosensitive Coating, and Sterilization Process

“…More than 20 million of hernias are annually repaired worldwide. Among the different types of hernias, the incidence of inguinal hernia is the highest, accounting for 75% of the cases. , Within this context, the unceasing research pushed by industry, professional societies and academy has played a major role bringing scientific and technological progress and enabling the development of more adaptable materials. , Currently, there are meshes with different knitting structures in the market, which enhance postoperative rehabilitation quality for patients and lower the recurrence rate. , Although the surgical mesh market is segmented on the basis of the used material, nowadays, the most ubiquitous are based on nonabsorbable polymers. ,, Among them, polypropylene (PP) is advantageous due to its nontoxicity, high biocompatibility, and minimized contamination during processing …”

“…Among the different types of hernias, the incidence of inguinal hernia is the highest, accounting for 75% of the cases. 1,2 Within this context, the unceasing research pushed by industry, professional societies and academy has played a major role bringing scientific and technological progress and enabling the development of more adaptable materials. 3,4 Currently, there are meshes with different knitting structures in the market, 5 which enhance postoperative rehabilitation quality for patients and lower the recurrence rate.…”

A Biocompatible Dual‐Sided Hernia Mesh with Side‐Specific Properties

“…[31,34,[40][41][42][43] Most of these commercial meshes involve physical separator/film as the visceral side and use additional material to attach the films with the mesh, which increases the manufacturing complexity, implant weight, chance of delamination of films and hence, the risk of inflammatory reaction. [33,36] Recently, Shokrollahi et al modified each side of PP mesh using electrospun mats with different compositions of biopolymers (PCL, carboxyethyl-chitosan, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)) and antibiotic (ofloxacin). [26] Introducing different biomaterials onto each side of mesh, is technically complex and will result in a three-layered structure with a large volume and weight, which increases the risk of inflammation.…”

“…There are several PP based commercial composite meshes modified with different materials and show different structures on each side. These meshes including Composix E/X mesh (BARD Davol Inc.), [ 30,31 ] Proceed (Ethicon), [ 31–33 ] DynaMesh IPOM (FEG Textiltechnik), [ 31,34 ] Sepramesh (Genzyme), [ 35,36 ] Physiomesh (Ethicon), [ 31,36 ] Ventralight™ ST mesh (BARD Davol Inc.), [ 31,37 ] Parietene DS composite (Covidicn/Medtronic), [ 31,38 ] and Pro‐Visc 3D (Lotus) [ 36,39 ] have shown interesting features and improved performance in some cases. However, their features and clinical studies report several issues including the increased risk of infection, adhesions, inflammation, allergic reaction, chronic pain, mechanical failure, shrinkage, seroma, fistula formation, and recurrence of the same or different types of hernia.…”