Surgery of the abdominal wall has rapidly evolved and has undergone a great transformation over the last 15 years. We have encountered several techniques and rigid principles, in which all surgeons were forced to confront, to patterns absolutely unforeseeable resulting from the development of several new procedures to which many surgeons have made personal variations. We must remember that, up to the early 1990s, for hernia repairs, there were the Bassini, the Shouldice and the Postemsky repairs, and, regarding prosthetic repair, only some skilled surgeons used Rives and Stoppa procedures in selected cases. As for ventral hernias, direct suture plastic was the prevailing procedure, reserving the use of prosthesis for particular selected cases. Since the mid 1990s, the wide diVusion and use of the prosthesis, with both anterior or posterior approaches, open or laparoscopic, with several kinds of prosthetic material, shaped in the most diVering manners, with the use of the most diVering Wxation devices, led us to a total anarchy in this Weld in which it is very diYcult to have clear ideas. Some years ago, I organised an international congress in Naples named “Anarchy in inguinal hernia repair” comparing, during a very interesting live session, all of the prosthetic procedures for inguinal hernias, starting from Lichtenstein repair. Anarchy meant, and means today, desiring to be in the limelight, inventing a new step of a procedure, a modiWcation of an existing surgical technique, often irrelevant to the outcome, proposing it as technical perfection, without the possibility of showing its value with long-term results. Abdominal wall surgery today has many solutions because we can perform anterior or posterior techniques, with open or laparoscopic approaches. What made a strong impression on me and urged me to write this article, was, during the recent EHS Congress well organised in Seville by our friend Salvador Morales Conde, assisting operations for inguinal and ventral hernias or to lecture, with the most diVering and varied proposal of solutions using diVerent meshes, and, above all, the proposal of laparoscopic repair also for giant ventral hernias. I don’t want to question the validity of the speakers or the scientiWc aspects of the project, but if I put myself in young surgeons’ or residents’ places who were there to understand and learn what to do in the presence of an inguinal or ventral hernia, in their place, I would have been more disoriented than when I arrived, with more confused ideas. Anarchy today has become more evident, in the absence of a scientiWc committee, of prospective randomised trials and consensus conferences; for all of these reasons, it’s easy to propose innovations, but it’s diYcult to understand why, how and with what purposes it is proposed. In my experience, I have always been used to having a few clear ideas. Among the few clear ideas, above all, to learn and understand a surgical technique, and to Wt it to the single cases, and also thanks to the teaching of my surgical guide Rives, they have led me with this philosophy with which I cannot today unfortunately face. I get disconcerted when, during a congress, I assist to hundreds of diVerent proposals and each one goes his own way without realising what is useful for the patients and for the scientiWc community. In fact, where there is anarchy, there is no didactic aim; only focussing one’s objectives on the rationality of a technique and on its transmissibility is it possible to teach and to send a message. In this anarchy, a prominent role is that of the companies, which, like a cat that bites its tail, stimulate the F. Corcione (&) · D. Cuccurullo UOC General and Laparoscopic Surgery, A.O. Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy e-mail: francesco.corcione@ospedalemonaldi.it