Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Use of Mosquito Net Mesh Versus Polypropylene Mesh in Tension-Free Repair of Inguinal Hernia: a 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Commercially available polypropylene mesh is preferred in the developed countries during inguinal hernioplasty. Whereas, the mosquito net mesh is a safe and effective alternative in the developing countries such as India. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of mosquito net mesh as prosthesis in comparison with polypropylene mesh in inguinal hernia repair by Lichtenstein tension-free technique. A total of 60 patients presented with uncomplicated inguinal hernia were randomized into two groups: group A (mosquito net mesh) and group B (polypropylene mesh). Postoperatively, the Southampton scoring system was employed to assess the level of infection at the surgical site on days 3, 5, 7, and 10. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS 20.0. The data were compared using Fisher’s exact test, chi-square test, and independent sample t test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All the patients were men and majority were in the age-group of 51–60 years. Right-sided inguinal hernia was reported in most (30) of the patients. The rate of surgical site infection on postoperative day 3 (P = 1.000), 5 (P = 0.704), 7 (P = 0.612), and 10 (P = 1.000) were comparable in both groups A and B. The baseline characteristics, clinical presentations, and assessment of surgical site infection in both groups were comparable. Therefore, mosquito net mesh, as prosthesis for inguinal hernia repair, is equally safe and efficacious as polypropylene mesh.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W, Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 456 Investigators (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350(18):1819–1827

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jenkins JT, O’Dwyer PJ (2008) Inguinal hernias. Br Med J 336(7638):269–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K (2003) Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet 362(9395):1561–1571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Devlin H (1995) Trends in hernia surgery in the land of Astley Cooper. Problems in Gen Surg 12:85–92

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar B, Madhusoodhanan N, Balaji A, Poornima M (2014) Prevalence and risk factors of inguinal hernia: a hospital based observational study. Int J Med Appl Sc 3(4):191–198

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gandhi D, Marcin S, Xin Z, Asha B, Kaswala D, Zamir B (2011) Chronic abdominal pain secondary to mesh erosion into cecum following incisional hernia repair: a case report and literature review. Ann Gastroenterol 24(4):321–324

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Adesunkanmi ARK, Badmus TA, Ogundoyin O (2004) Determinants of outcome of inguinal herniorrhaphy in Nigerian patients. Surg Pract 8(1):14–21

    Google Scholar 

  8. Darokar A, Bele K, Mulmule R, Qazi R (2016) Study of open inguinal hernia repair by mosquito net mesh versus polypropylene mesh. Int J Res Med Sci 4(1):126–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stephenson B, Kingsnorth A (2011) Inguinal hernioplasty using mosquito net mesh in low income countries an alternative and cost effective prosthesis. Surgery: Br Med J 18:1237–1247

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tongaonkar RR, David L, Kingsnorth AN (2013) Ten-year personal experience of using low density polyethylene (LDPE) mesh for inguinal hernia repair. Trop Med Surg 1:136. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-9088.1000136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams NS, Bailey H, Bulstrode CJ, Love RM, O’Connell PR (2008) Bailey & Love’s short practice of surgery. Crc Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Gottrup F, Melling A, Hollander DA (2005) An overview of surgical site infections: aetiology, incidence and risk factors. EWMA Journal 5(2):11–15

    Google Scholar 

  13. Freudenberg S, Sano D, Ouangré E, Weiss C, Wilhelm TJ (2006) Commercial mesh versus nylon mosquito net for hernia repair. A randomized double-blind study in Burkina Faso. World J Surg 30(10):1784–1789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kiss A, Corona D, Kiss O (2012) The use of mosquito-net cloths as prosthesis in inguinal hernia repair: an experience in Southern Sudan. Surgical Science 3(03):155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hair A, Duffy K, McLean J, Taylor S, Smith H, Walker A, Macintyre IMC, O'Dwyer PJ (2000) Groin hernia repair in Scotland. Br J Surg 87(12):1722–1726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed in the development of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashok Pangi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pradhan, R., Pangi, A. Use of Mosquito Net Mesh Versus Polypropylene Mesh in Tension-Free Repair of Inguinal Hernia: a 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Surg 82, 1063–1066 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-020-02216-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-020-02216-9

Keywords

Navigation