The importance of mechanical properties
in minimizing tissue adhesion1

Dual-Sided Composite Meshes - Minimizing visceral attachment and facilitating tissue ingrowth2,3,†

Proven Results.
Improving Lives.

Explore more information about the importance of mechanical properties and other key parameters driving mesh performance.

Two important parameters in abdominal wall repair

Intra-abdominal Pressure (AP)

AP has been considered responsible for adverse effects in trauma and other abdominal catastrophes as well as in recurrence of hernias.5

Reports indicate that depending patient type and activity, the intra-abdominal pressure can be up to 250 mmHg.5

Range of maximum pressures generated for each maneuver in Cobb’s study.5

Abdominal Wall Elasticity

Elasticity of the anterior abdominal wall and impact for reparation of incisional hernias using mesh implants.6

Dual-sided composite meshes

Minimizing visceral attachment and facilitating tissue ingrowth2,3,†

Abdominal wall reinforcement:

Resorbable films
(e.g., Collagen, Polyesters)

Macroporous permanent mesh
(e.g., Polyester, Polypropylene)

Complete tissue integration 

Free of extensive inflammation4,†

Symbotex™ Composite Mesh

Comparative performance3,†

Adhesion coverage of mesh surface at 7 days in an animal model.


The ideal mesh

Meshes long term tolerance depends on their physical and mechanical properties.

When in contact with viscera, the meshes should be protected by a continous smooth barrier to minimize visceral adhesions.

Smooth and continous resorbable barriers outperform hydrophobic permanent barriers in preclinical models.

  • † Based on preclinical study. Results may not correlate to performance in humans. 

  • 1. Lefranc O, Bayon Y, Montanari S, Gravagna P, Thérin M. Reinforcement materials in soft tissue repair: Key parameters
    controlling tolerance and performance – current and future trends in mesh development, new techniques in genital prolapse
    surgery. Springer London. 2011;275–287.

  • 2. Based on NAMSA Study #198929. Minimizing tissue attachment barrier performance, local tissue effects and tissue integration
    of Parietene™ DS composite mesh in a rat cecal abrasion model. Based on occurrence rates of cecal soft tissue attachment to the
    mesh through macroscopic observations in the rat (n = 18 test articles versus n = 12 bare mesh; p < 0.05). Oct. 2016.

  • 3. Based on internal test report #162750, Evaluating local tissue effects, tissue integration and minimizing tissue attachment
    performance of Symbotex™ composite mesh versus Parietex™ optimized composite mesh. May 2013. 

  • 4. Based on a NAMSA preclinical study #163905. Symbotex™ composite mesh versus competitors in a pig bowel abrasion
    model. Oct. 2013.

  • 5. Wiiliam S. Cobb, M.D., Justin M. Burns, M.D., Kent W Kercher, M.D., Brent D. Matthews, M.M., H. James Norton, Ph.D., and B. Todd Heniford, M.D. Journal of Surgical Research 129,231-235 (2005) Normal Intraabdominal Pressure in Healthy Adults

  • 6. K. Junge, U. Klinge,  A. Prescher , P. Giboni M. Niewiera , V. Schumplelick. Hernia (2001) 5: 113-118 DOI 10.1007/s100290100019