title: Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  It is an undisputable fact that meshes have become standard for repair of abdominal wall hernias. Whereas in the late eighties there were only a couple of different devices available, today we have to choose among some hundreds, with lots of minor and major variations in polymer and structure. As most of the minor variations may not lead to significant change in clinical outcome and may be regarded as less relevant, we should focus on major differences. Eventually, this is used to structure the world of mesh by forming groups of textile devices with distinct biological response. Many experimental and some clinical studies have underlined the outstanding importance of porosity, which fortunately, in contrast to other biomechanical quanlities, is widely unaffected by the anisotropy of meshes.
  
  
  METHODS
  In accordance with the major manufacturers of meshes, a classification of meshes was derived from a huge pool of textile data based briefly on the following: (1) large pores, (2) small pores, (3) additional features, (4) no pores, (5) 3D structure and (6) biological origin. At 1,000 explanted meshes the value of this classification was evaluated by group-specific assessment of inflammatory and connective tissue reaction.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Application of this classification to common products has proved feasable, and each of the six different classes includes devices that in clinical trials failed to show relevant differences in patients' outcome when comparing products within the same group. Furthermore, histological analysis confirmed significant differences in tissue reactions between but not within the different classes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Classifying implants according to a similar response enables grouping patients into comparable cohorts despite implantation of different devices. Furthermore, it enables the examination of the impact of mesh classes for the various indications even from heterogenous data of registries. Finally and not the least, any grouping supports the surgeon to select the best device to meet the individual need and to tailor patients therapy.
authors.affiliation: Surgical Department, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. uklinge@ukaachen.de
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Klinge
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Klosterhalfen
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D016880:Anisotropy; D001672:Biocompatible Materials / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000145:classification*; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D004548:Elasticity; D046449:Hernia, Abdominal / Q000601:surgery; D059685:Herniorrhaphy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D016062:Porosity; D013526:Surgical Mesh / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000145:classification*; D013718:Tensile Strength; D013784:Textiles / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000145:classification*
chemical_list: D001672:Biocompatible Materials