Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Titanium-coated mesh versus standard polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to compare the clinical outcome of titanium-coated mesh and polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Methods

A total of 102 patients who received laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in January–June 2016 in Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, receiving either titanium-coated mesh (n = 50) or standard polypropylene mesh (n = 52). Multiple clinical parameters were collected and analyzed, including clinical manifestations, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, hospital cost, recovery time, and postoperative complications.

Results

All procedures were completed. A statistical difference between two groups was not identified in regards to operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and recovery time (P > 0.05). Three cases with seroma and 15 with foreign body sensation were reported in the titanium-coated mesh group; 9 cases with seroma and 17 with foreign body sensation were reported in the standard polypropylene mesh group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of seroma and/or foreign body sensation. A lower hospital cost but longer recovery period was documented in the standard polypropylene mesh group (P < 0.05). No recurrence, infection or chronic pain was observed during 1-year follow-up in both groups.

Conclusion

Titanium-coated mesh possesses comparable clinical qualities as the standard polypropylene mesh but with a shorter recovery period. Therefore, this mesh is promising for clinical practice though the cost is higher than the standard polypropylene mesh.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jakhmola CK, Kumar A (2015) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the armed forces: a 5-year single centre study. Med J Armed Forces India 71(4):317–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Burcharth J, Pedersen M, Bisgaard T et al (2013) Nationwide prevalence of groin hernia repair. PLoS One 8(1):e54367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nathan JD, Pappas TN (2003) Inguinal hernia: an old condition with new solutions. Ann Surg 238(6 Suppl):S148–S157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Feng B, He ZR, Li JW et al (2013) Feasibility of incremental laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair development in China: an 11-year experience. J Am Coll Surg 216(2):258–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Baynielsen M et al (2014) European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 13(4):151–163

    Google Scholar 

  6. Koch A, Bringman S, Myrelid P et al (2008) Randomized clinical trial of groin hernia repair with titanium-coated lightweight mesh compared with standard polypropylene mesh. Br J Surg 95(10):1226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moreno-Egea A, Carrillo-Alcaraz A, Soria-Aledo V (2013) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic hernia repair comparing titanium-coated lightweight mesh and medium-weight composite mesh. Surg Endosc 27(1):231–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. SchugPaß C, Tamme C, Tannapfel A et al (2006) A lightweight polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) for laparoscopic intraperitoneal repair of abdominal wall hernias. Surg Endosc 20(3):402–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ward CL, Shaw D, Sprumont D et al (2018) Good collaborative practice: reforming capacity building governance of international health research partnerships. Global Health 14(1):1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B (2012) Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes. Hernia 16(3):251–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Tollens T, Topal H, Lucardie A et al (2016) Long-Term Outcome After Laparoscopic Repair of Primary, Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Using a Self-Adhering Mesh. Surg Technol Int 30:151–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK et al (1989) The tension-free hernioplasty. Am J Surg 157(2):188–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pokorny H, Klingler AT, Fortelny R et al. (2008) Recurrence and complications after laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: results of a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 12(4):385

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Saber A, Hokkam EN, Ellabban GM (2015) Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal approach for recurrent inguinal hernia: a randomized trial. J Minimal Access Surg 11(2):123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mccormack K, Wake BL, Fraser C et al (2005) Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 9(2):109–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nienhuijs S, Staal E, Strobbe L et al (2007) Chronic pain after mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review. Am J Surg 194(3):394–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Li J, Ji Z, Cheng T (2012) Lightweight versus heavyweight in inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Hernia 16(5):529–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bracale U, Melillo P, Pignata G et al (2012) Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26(12):3355–3366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sajid MS, Leaver C, Baig MK et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 99(1):29–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown CN, Finch JG (2010) Which mesh for hernia repair? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(4):272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Köckerling F, Schug-Pass C (2014) What do we know about titanized polypropylene meshes? An evidence-based review of the literature. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 18(4):445–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ruiz-Jasbon F, Norrby J, Ivarsson M-L et al. (2014) Inguinal hernia repair using a synthetic long-term resorbable mesh: results from a 3-year prospective safety and performance study. Hernia 18(5):723–730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hernia and Abdominal wall Surgery, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, No. 5 JingYuan Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100043, China

    S. Yang, Y.-M. Shen, M.-G. Wang, Z.-Y. Zou, C.-H. Jin & J. Chen

Authors
  1. S. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y.-M. Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M.-G. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Z.-Y. Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C.-H. Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest involved.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Beijing Chao-Yang hospital.

Human and animal rights

All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital.

Informed consent

Written informed consents were obtained from all the participants before the trial.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, S., Shen, YM., Wang, MG. et al. Titanium-coated mesh versus standard polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Hernia 23, 255–259 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1823-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1823-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation