Mosquito Net Mesh for Abdominal Wall Hernioplasty: A Comparison of Material Characteristics with Commercial Prosthetics
Background The use of sterilized mosquito net as a cheaper alternative to commercial mesh used in hernia repair has previously been published. However, as no standards with regard to the material have been documented, we aimed to define the characteristics of a commonly available and low-cost mosqui...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of surgery 2013-04, Vol.37 (4), p.737-745 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 745 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 737 |
container_title | World journal of surgery |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Sanders, David L. Kingsnorth, Andrew N. Stephenson, Brian M. |
description | Background
The use of sterilized mosquito net as a cheaper alternative to commercial mesh used in hernia repair has previously been published. However, as no standards with regard to the material have been documented, we aimed to define the characteristics of a commonly available and low-cost mosquito net, which has already been shown to be clinically efficacious in groin hernia repair. We compared its characteristics to other commercially available meshes, in keeping with the well-established FDA and MHRA regulatory processes.
Methods
The macromolecular structure of the mosquito net was determined by vibrational spectroscopy. The ultrastructure of the meshes was examined with scanning electron microscopy, and uniaxial and burst tensile strength testing was performed. The following parameters were assessed: polymer type, filament characteristics, pore size, weight, linear density, elasticity, and tensile strength.
Results
The mosquito net was a polyethylene homopolymer, knitted from monofilament fibers with a mean filament diameter of 109.7 μm and a mean mesh thickness of 480 μm. The mean pore maximum diameter was 1.9 mm, with 91.2 % porosity, 53.7 g/m
2
mean mesh weight, and a linear mass density of 152 denier. This was comparable to the “large pore” (class I) commercial meshes. The bursting force for polyethylene mosquito net was greater than for UltraPro and Vypro (43.0 vs. 35.5 and 27.2 N/cm, respectively), and the mosquito net exhibited less anisotropy compared to the commercial meshes.
Conclusions
The material and mechanical properties of the polyethylene mosquito net are substantially equivalent to those of commonly used lightweight commercial meshes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00268-012-1900-x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1520371609</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1520371609</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-e04b331a0a08a3d7394cb08f4ba3fd96eb72e3f8391b7ab6e29369f1fa7110a03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkVGL1DAUhYMo7jj6A3yRgC--VG9yM0nr2zi4rrKjgso-hrSTOFnaZjZpmZ1_b0pXEUH2KQn3O4ebcwh5zuA1A1BvEgCXZQGMF6wCKG4fkAUTyAuOHB-SBaAU-c7wjDxJ6RqAKQnyMTnjiAIUqAU5bkO6Gf0Q6Gc70K1Ne-pCpOt6Fzrfm5ZembalFzb2Phxak4bTW7qmm9AdTPQp9DQ4ujWDjT6zm72JppkeafBNokc_7Ce2s7GZ5l9jSMPeTrOn5JEzbbLP7s4l-XH-_vvmorj88uHjZn1ZNGK1wsKCqBGZAQOlwZ3CSjQ1lE7UBt2ukrZW3KIrsWK1MrW0vEJZOeaMYiyLcElezb6HGG5Gmwbd-dTYtjW9DWPSbMUBFZNQ3Y8iW0kUVc5zSV7-g16HMea4ZoqLEqTIFJupJv87Rev0IfrOxJNmoKcC9VygzgXqqUB9mzUv7pzHurO7P4rfjWWgmoGjb-3pfkd99enbu3OQOZis5bM2ZVn_08a_1v7vRr8Aq6G3KQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1315248064</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mosquito Net Mesh for Abdominal Wall Hernioplasty: A Comparison of Material Characteristics with Commercial Prosthetics</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Sanders, David L. ; Kingsnorth, Andrew N. ; Stephenson, Brian M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sanders, David L. ; Kingsnorth, Andrew N. ; Stephenson, Brian M.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The use of sterilized mosquito net as a cheaper alternative to commercial mesh used in hernia repair has previously been published. However, as no standards with regard to the material have been documented, we aimed to define the characteristics of a commonly available and low-cost mosquito net, which has already been shown to be clinically efficacious in groin hernia repair. We compared its characteristics to other commercially available meshes, in keeping with the well-established FDA and MHRA regulatory processes.
Methods
The macromolecular structure of the mosquito net was determined by vibrational spectroscopy. The ultrastructure of the meshes was examined with scanning electron microscopy, and uniaxial and burst tensile strength testing was performed. The following parameters were assessed: polymer type, filament characteristics, pore size, weight, linear density, elasticity, and tensile strength.
Results
The mosquito net was a polyethylene homopolymer, knitted from monofilament fibers with a mean filament diameter of 109.7 μm and a mean mesh thickness of 480 μm. The mean pore maximum diameter was 1.9 mm, with 91.2 % porosity, 53.7 g/m
2
mean mesh weight, and a linear mass density of 152 denier. This was comparable to the “large pore” (class I) commercial meshes. The bursting force for polyethylene mosquito net was greater than for UltraPro and Vypro (43.0 vs. 35.5 and 27.2 N/cm, respectively), and the mosquito net exhibited less anisotropy compared to the commercial meshes.
Conclusions
The material and mechanical properties of the polyethylene mosquito net are substantially equivalent to those of commonly used lightweight commercial meshes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-2313</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2323</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1900-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23340707</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Abdominal Wall Reconstruction ; Cardiac Surgery ; Culicidae ; Elasticity ; General Surgery ; Hernia Repair ; Herniorrhaphy - instrumentation ; Humans ; Maximum Tensile Strength ; Mechanical Phenomena ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning ; Mosquito Nets ; Percentage Porosity ; Polyethylene - chemistry ; Porosity ; Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared ; Surgery ; Surgical Mesh ; Tensile Strength ; Thoracic Surgery ; Vascular Surgery ; Weft Direction</subject><ispartof>World journal of surgery, 2013-04, Vol.37 (4), p.737-745</ispartof><rights>Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2013</rights><rights>2013 The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-e04b331a0a08a3d7394cb08f4ba3fd96eb72e3f8391b7ab6e29369f1fa7110a03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-e04b331a0a08a3d7394cb08f4ba3fd96eb72e3f8391b7ab6e29369f1fa7110a03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00268-012-1900-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00268-012-1900-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,41467,42536,45553,45554,51298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23340707$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sanders, David L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kingsnorth, Andrew N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephenson, Brian M.</creatorcontrib><title>Mosquito Net Mesh for Abdominal Wall Hernioplasty: A Comparison of Material Characteristics with Commercial Prosthetics</title><title>World journal of surgery</title><addtitle>World J Surg</addtitle><addtitle>World J Surg</addtitle><description>Background
The use of sterilized mosquito net as a cheaper alternative to commercial mesh used in hernia repair has previously been published. However, as no standards with regard to the material have been documented, we aimed to define the characteristics of a commonly available and low-cost mosquito net, which has already been shown to be clinically efficacious in groin hernia repair. We compared its characteristics to other commercially available meshes, in keeping with the well-established FDA and MHRA regulatory processes.
Methods
The macromolecular structure of the mosquito net was determined by vibrational spectroscopy. The ultrastructure of the meshes was examined with scanning electron microscopy, and uniaxial and burst tensile strength testing was performed. The following parameters were assessed: polymer type, filament characteristics, pore size, weight, linear density, elasticity, and tensile strength.
Results
The mosquito net was a polyethylene homopolymer, knitted from monofilament fibers with a mean filament diameter of 109.7 μm and a mean mesh thickness of 480 μm. The mean pore maximum diameter was 1.9 mm, with 91.2 % porosity, 53.7 g/m
2
mean mesh weight, and a linear mass density of 152 denier. This was comparable to the “large pore” (class I) commercial meshes. The bursting force for polyethylene mosquito net was greater than for UltraPro and Vypro (43.0 vs. 35.5 and 27.2 N/cm, respectively), and the mosquito net exhibited less anisotropy compared to the commercial meshes.
Conclusions
The material and mechanical properties of the polyethylene mosquito net are substantially equivalent to those of commonly used lightweight commercial meshes.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Abdominal Wall Reconstruction</subject><subject>Cardiac Surgery</subject><subject>Culicidae</subject><subject>Elasticity</subject><subject>General Surgery</subject><subject>Hernia Repair</subject><subject>Herniorrhaphy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Maximum Tensile Strength</subject><subject>Mechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</subject><subject>Mosquito Nets</subject><subject>Percentage Porosity</subject><subject>Polyethylene - chemistry</subject><subject>Porosity</subject><subject>Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh</subject><subject>Tensile Strength</subject><subject>Thoracic Surgery</subject><subject>Vascular Surgery</subject><subject>Weft Direction</subject><issn>0364-2313</issn><issn>1432-2323</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkVGL1DAUhYMo7jj6A3yRgC--VG9yM0nr2zi4rrKjgso-hrSTOFnaZjZpmZ1_b0pXEUH2KQn3O4ebcwh5zuA1A1BvEgCXZQGMF6wCKG4fkAUTyAuOHB-SBaAU-c7wjDxJ6RqAKQnyMTnjiAIUqAU5bkO6Gf0Q6Gc70K1Ne-pCpOt6Fzrfm5ZembalFzb2Phxak4bTW7qmm9AdTPQp9DQ4ujWDjT6zm72JppkeafBNokc_7Ce2s7GZ5l9jSMPeTrOn5JEzbbLP7s4l-XH-_vvmorj88uHjZn1ZNGK1wsKCqBGZAQOlwZ3CSjQ1lE7UBt2ukrZW3KIrsWK1MrW0vEJZOeaMYiyLcElezb6HGG5Gmwbd-dTYtjW9DWPSbMUBFZNQ3Y8iW0kUVc5zSV7-g16HMea4ZoqLEqTIFJupJv87Rev0IfrOxJNmoKcC9VygzgXqqUB9mzUv7pzHurO7P4rfjWWgmoGjb-3pfkd99enbu3OQOZis5bM2ZVn_08a_1v7vRr8Aq6G3KQ</recordid><startdate>201304</startdate><enddate>201304</enddate><creator>Sanders, David L.</creator><creator>Kingsnorth, Andrew N.</creator><creator>Stephenson, Brian M.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer‐Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201304</creationdate><title>Mosquito Net Mesh for Abdominal Wall Hernioplasty: A Comparison of Material Characteristics with Commercial Prosthetics</title><author>Sanders, David L. ; Kingsnorth, Andrew N. ; Stephenson, Brian M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-e04b331a0a08a3d7394cb08f4ba3fd96eb72e3f8391b7ab6e29369f1fa7110a03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Abdominal Wall Reconstruction</topic><topic>Cardiac Surgery</topic><topic>Culicidae</topic><topic>Elasticity</topic><topic>General Surgery</topic><topic>Hernia Repair</topic><topic>Herniorrhaphy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Maximum Tensile Strength</topic><topic>Mechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</topic><topic>Mosquito Nets</topic><topic>Percentage Porosity</topic><topic>Polyethylene - chemistry</topic><topic>Porosity</topic><topic>Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh</topic><topic>Tensile Strength</topic><topic>Thoracic Surgery</topic><topic>Vascular Surgery</topic><topic>Weft Direction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sanders, David L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kingsnorth, Andrew N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephenson, Brian M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>World journal of surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sanders, David L.</au><au>Kingsnorth, Andrew N.</au><au>Stephenson, Brian M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mosquito Net Mesh for Abdominal Wall Hernioplasty: A Comparison of Material Characteristics with Commercial Prosthetics</atitle><jtitle>World journal of surgery</jtitle><stitle>World J Surg</stitle><addtitle>World J Surg</addtitle><date>2013-04</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>737</spage><epage>745</epage><pages>737-745</pages><issn>0364-2313</issn><eissn>1432-2323</eissn><abstract>Background
The use of sterilized mosquito net as a cheaper alternative to commercial mesh used in hernia repair has previously been published. However, as no standards with regard to the material have been documented, we aimed to define the characteristics of a commonly available and low-cost mosquito net, which has already been shown to be clinically efficacious in groin hernia repair. We compared its characteristics to other commercially available meshes, in keeping with the well-established FDA and MHRA regulatory processes.
Methods
The macromolecular structure of the mosquito net was determined by vibrational spectroscopy. The ultrastructure of the meshes was examined with scanning electron microscopy, and uniaxial and burst tensile strength testing was performed. The following parameters were assessed: polymer type, filament characteristics, pore size, weight, linear density, elasticity, and tensile strength.
Results
The mosquito net was a polyethylene homopolymer, knitted from monofilament fibers with a mean filament diameter of 109.7 μm and a mean mesh thickness of 480 μm. The mean pore maximum diameter was 1.9 mm, with 91.2 % porosity, 53.7 g/m
2
mean mesh weight, and a linear mass density of 152 denier. This was comparable to the “large pore” (class I) commercial meshes. The bursting force for polyethylene mosquito net was greater than for UltraPro and Vypro (43.0 vs. 35.5 and 27.2 N/cm, respectively), and the mosquito net exhibited less anisotropy compared to the commercial meshes.
Conclusions
The material and mechanical properties of the polyethylene mosquito net are substantially equivalent to those of commonly used lightweight commercial meshes.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>23340707</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00268-012-1900-x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0364-2313 |
ispartof | World journal of surgery, 2013-04, Vol.37 (4), p.737-745 |
issn | 0364-2313 1432-2323 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1520371609 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Abdominal Surgery Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Cardiac Surgery Culicidae Elasticity General Surgery Hernia Repair Herniorrhaphy - instrumentation Humans Maximum Tensile Strength Mechanical Phenomena Medicine Medicine & Public Health Microscopy, Electron, Scanning Mosquito Nets Percentage Porosity Polyethylene - chemistry Porosity Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared Surgery Surgical Mesh Tensile Strength Thoracic Surgery Vascular Surgery Weft Direction |
title | Mosquito Net Mesh for Abdominal Wall Hernioplasty: A Comparison of Material Characteristics with Commercial Prosthetics |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T21%3A46%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mosquito%20Net%20Mesh%20for%20Abdominal%20Wall%20Hernioplasty:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Material%20Characteristics%20with%20Commercial%20Prosthetics&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20surgery&rft.au=Sanders,%20David%20L.&rft.date=2013-04&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=737&rft.epage=745&rft.pages=737-745&rft.issn=0364-2313&rft.eissn=1432-2323&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00268-012-1900-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1520371609%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1315248064&rft_id=info:pmid/23340707&rfr_iscdi=true |