ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022
The experimental methodology and comparators used for in vivo hernia mesh testing: a 10-year scoping review.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Biomechanical Behavior of an Aged Synthetic Hernia Mesh Under a Cough-Simulating Protocol.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Extended validation of the mesh integration (MINT) index: a 1-year porcine study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- How do we evaluate the remodeling and regeneration of absorbable meshes? Multi-dimensional evaluation parameters from multi-species.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Review
- Introducing the Mesh Integration (MINT) Index: a standardised ratio scale for assessing in vivo hernia mesh performance.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Experimental methodology used for testingRSC advances · 2025Review
- Assessment of mesh shrinkage using fibroblast-populated collagen matrices: a proof of concept for in vitro hernia mesh testing.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Safety and tissue remodeling assay of small intestinal submucosa meshes using a modified porcine surgical hernia model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBefore being marketed, hernia mesh must undergo in vivo testing, which often includes biomechanical and histological assessment. Currently, there are no universal standards for this testing and methods vary greatly within the literature. A scoping review of relevant studies was undertaken to analyse the methodologies used for in vivo mesh testing.
methodsMedline and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies. 513 articles were identified and 231 duplicates excluded. 126 papers were included after abstract and full text review. The data extraction was undertaken using standardised forms.
resultsMesh is most commonly tested in rats (53%). 78% of studies involve the formation of a defect; in 52% of which the fascia is not opposed. The most common hernia models use mesh to bridge an acute defect (50%). Tensile strength testing is the commonest form of mechanical testing (63%). Testing strip widths and test speeds vary greatly (4-30 mm and 1.625-240 mm/min, respectively). There is little consensus on which units to use for tensile strength testing. Collagen is assessed for its abundance (54 studies) more than its alignment (18 studies). Alignment is not measured quantitatively. At least 21 histological scoring systems are used for in vivo mesh testing.
conclusionsThe current practice of in vivo mesh testing lacks standardisation. There is significant inconsistency in every category of testing, both in methodology and comparators. We would call upon hernia organisations and materials testing institutions to discuss the need for a standardised approach to this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.