Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2025
Fabricating Superhydrophobic Polymeric Materials for Biomedical Applications
Published on: August 28, 2015
Quantifying mesh textile and effective porosities: A straightforward image analysis procedure for morphological
Vincenzo Giacalone1, Vittoria Civilini1, Alberto L Audenino1
1Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin 10129, Italy; Polito(BIO)Med Lab, Politecnico di Torino, Turin 10129, Italy.
Background And Objectives:
Surgical meshes have demonstrated greater reliability compared to suture repair for abdominal wall hernia treatment. However, questions remain regarding the properties of these devices and their influence on surgical outcomes. Morphological properties, including pore size and porosity, play a crucial role in mesh integration and encapsulation. In this study, we introduce a straightforward image analysis procedure for accurately calculating both textile porosity and effective porosity. The latter specifically considers pores that prevent bridging, providing valuable insights into mesh performance.
Methods:
A photographic setup was established to capture high-quality images of the meshes, accompanied by calibration images necessary for computing the effective porosity. The developed image analysis procedure comprises seven steps focused on improving the binarization process's quality, followed by the computation of textile and effective porosities. To facilitate usability, an app called "poreScanner" was designed using MATLAB app designer, guiding users through the algorithm described herein. The app was used to compute both porosities on 24 meshes sourced from various manufacturers, by averaging seven measurements obtained from as many images. The app's measurement stability was validated computing the coefficient of variation for both textile and effective porosity, for a total of 36 results (24 for the textile porosity and 12 for the effective one). Additionally, different operators independently tested one heavy and one light mesh, confirming the measurement's operator independence.
Results:
The results on the coefficient of variation indicated values below 5 % in 34 out of 36 cases, regardless of the mesh density. Similarly, the same parameter was computed to assess the independence of the procedure from different operators, yielding a maximum value of 1.84 %. These findings confirm the robustness and user-independence of the measurement procedure.
Conclusions:
The procedure presented in this study is straightforward to replicate and yields dependable results. Its adoption has the potential to standardize the computation of surgical mesh porosity, enabling consistent determination of this crucial morphological parameter.
