Scoping review maps the impact of mesh-enhanced therapies on systemic inflammation and biological integration, highlighting clinical implications.
Despite reducing hernia recurrence, synthetic meshes often trigger persistent foreign body responses (FBRs). Mesh-enriched therapies (METs), incorporating autologous cellular components (MSCs, PRP, SVF), can regeneratively reprogram the host-prosthetic interactome. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this scoping review involved a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (2000–2025). We utilized the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) framework to map evidence across systemic inflammation, local FBR, and bio-augmentation strategies. A total of sixty-five studies were synthesized and categorized into three primary thematic pillars. Regarding the Systemic Response (n = 25), the data established a predictable “foreign body signature” characterized by prominent C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) spikes within the first 48 h post-implantation. For the Local Foreign Body Reaction (FBR, n = 19), human explant data extending up to 180 months revealed a perpetual, immune-mediated state driven by matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) matrix remodeling and the development of “bridging fibrosis.” Finally, concerning Mesh-Enriched Therapy (MET) Integration (n = 21), biological enrichment successfully shifted the M1/M2 macrophage ratio toward a pro-regenerative, CD163+/CD206+ phenotype. While MET consistently enhanced vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-driven angiogenesis and optimized the Collagen I/III ratio, a notable 22.2% discrepancy rate across the literature underscores the critical need for precise transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1) dosing and release kinetics to prevent hyper-fibrosis. MET shifts hernia repair from passive mechanical reinforcement to active “biocamouflage” and integration. By modulating the Th1/Th2 rheostat, enriched therapies mitigate chronic inflammation and long-term complications. Standardized clinical trials are essential to optimize the therapeutic window for hybrid integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Finascu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: