Mesh and plane selection: a summary of options and outcomes

  • Alimi Y
  • Merle C
  • Sosin M
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
59Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. How to cite this article: Alimi Y, Merle C, Sosin M, Mahan M, Bhanot P. Mesh and plane selection: a summary of options and outcomes. Plast Aesthet Res 2020;7:5. http://dx. Abstract Abdominal wall reconstruction is a relevant and important topic not only in plastic and reconstructive surgery, but in the practice of general surgeons. The ideal anatomic location for mesh placement during the repair of ventral hernias has been debated; however, the most common anatomic locations include onlay, inlay, sublay-retromuscular, sublay-preperitoneal, and sublay-intraperitoneal techniques, as defined by the European Hernia Society. Additionally, the availability of numerous synthetic and biologic meshes on the market provides for several options for the practicing surgeon. In this review, we provide a summary of the available literature of both the ideal mesh plane and the appropriate opportunities to use both synthetic and biologic meshes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alimi, Y., Merle, C., Sosin, M., Mahan, M., & Bhanot, P. (2020). Mesh and plane selection: a summary of options and outcomes. Plastic and Aesthetic Research, 2020. https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2019.39

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free