World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 234–244 | Cite as

Improving Outcomes in Hernia Repair by the Use of Light Meshes—A Comparison of Different Implant Constructions Based on a Critical Appraisal of the Literature

  • Dirk WeyheEmail author
  • Orlin Belyaev
  • Christophe Müller
  • Kirsten Meurer
  • Karl-Heinz Bauer
  • Georgios Papapostolou
  • Waldemar Uhl



Despite convincing advantages offered by meshes, their use in hernia surgery remains controversial because of fears concerning the long-term effects of their implantation. To improve biocompatibility, a large variety of newly developed light meshes has been introduced to the market.

This overview of the literature aimed to establish whether absolute material reduction (g per implanted mesh), use of absorbable components, and coating by inert materials are evidence-based ways to improve biocompatibility of meshes.


A review of the current English and German language literature on the outcome of groin und incisional hernia mesh repair was performed. Both basic research and clinical trials were used as sources of data. Meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials were given priority and were referred to whenever possible.


Operative technique was an independent prognostic factor for the clinical outcome. Mesh construction and composition as characterized by pore size and filament structure appeared to be more important determinants of foreign body reaction after implantation than absolute material reduction of 1 g or more per implant. No data exist about an oncogenic effect of alloplastic materials in humans, but disturbed fertility in animal studies remains an issue of concern and should be further investigated.


According to data from current randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies, light meshes seem to have some advantages with respect to postoperative pain and foreign body sensation. However, their use is associated with increased recurrence rates. Light meshes offer no advantages with respect to alleviating severe chronic groin pain. At the same time, experimental data reveal that material composition and mesh structure may significantly affect foreign body reaction.


Hernia Repair Incisional Hernia Polypropylene Mesh Foreign Body Reaction Azoospermia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L, et al. Danish Hernia Collaboration. Quality assessment of 26 304 herniorraphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 2001;358:1124–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grant A. EU Hernia Trialist Collaboration. Laparoscopic versus open groin hernia repair: meta- analysis of randomized trials based on individual patient data. Hernia 2002;6:2–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grant A. EU Hernia Trialist Collaboration. Open mesh versus non-mesh repair of groin hernia: meta-analysis of randomized trials based on individual patient data. Hernia 2002;6:130–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T. Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time? A population-based analysis. Ann Surg 2003;237:132–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agrawal A, Avill R. Mesh migration following repair of inguinal hernia: a case report and review of literature. Hernia 2005;29:1–4Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schumpelick V, Klinge U, Schwab R. [Importance of various operative techniques in inguinal hernia repair] [in German]. Viszeralchirurgie 2004;39:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klinge U, Schumpelick V. Prosthetic implants for hernia repair. Br J Surg 2003;90:1457–1458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U. The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2005;2:103–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shin D, Lipshultz LI, Goldstein M, et al. Herniorrhaphy with polypropylene mesh causing vasal obstruction: a preventable cause of obstructive azoospermia. Ann Surg 2005;241:553–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peiper C, Junge K, Klinge U, et al. Is there a risk of infertility after inguinal mesh repair? Experimental studies in the pig and the rabbit. Hernia 2006;10:7–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peiper C, Junge K, Klinge U, et al. The influence of inguinal mesh repair on the spermatic cord: a pilot study in the rabbit. J Invest Surg 2005;18:273–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Hermanns B, et al. [Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans][in German]. Chirurg 2000;71:43–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hermanns B, Klinge U, Alfer J, et al. [Pro-oncogenesis and surgical meshes][in German]. Viszeralchirurgie 2004;39:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghadimi BM, Langer C, Becker H. [Oncogenicity and synthetic meshes: contra][in German]. Viszeralchirurgie 2004;3:948–951Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghadimi BM, Langer C, Becker H. [The carcinogenic potential of biomaterials in hernia surgery][in German]. Chirurg 2002;73:833–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Witherspoon P, Bryson G, Wright DM, et al. Carcinogenic potential of commonly used hernia repair prostheses in an experimental model. Br J Surg 2004;91:368–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    FDA, CDRH: Guidance for the Preparation of a Premarket Notification Application for a Surgical Mesh. March 2, 1999,
  18. 18.
    Williams D. Revisiting the definition of biocompatibility. Med Device Technol 2003;14:10–13Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, et al. In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc 2004;18:211–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scheidbach H, Tannapfel A, Schmidt U, et al. Influence of titanium coating on the biocompatibility of a heavyweight polypropylene mesh. An animal experimental animal model. Eur Surg 2004;36:313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Junge K, Rosch R, Klinge U, et al. Titanium coating of a polypropylene mesh for hernia repair: effect on biocompatibility. Hernia 2005;9:115–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Junge K, Klinge U, Rosch R, et al. Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 2002;26:1472–1480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Junge K, Rosch R, Krones CJ, et al. Influence of polyglecaprone 25 (Monocryl) supplementation on the biocompatibility of a polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. Hernia 2005;9:212–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amici C, Rossi A, Santoro MG. Aspirin enhances thermotolerance in human erythroleukemic cells: an effect associated with the modulation of the heat shock response. Cancer Res 1995;55:4452–4457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosch R, Junge K, Quester R, et al. VYPRO II® mesh in hernia repair: impact of polyglactin on long-term incorporation in rats. Eur Surg Res 2003;35:445–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amid PK et al. Polypropylene prostheses. In: Bendavid R, Abrahamnson J, Arregui ME, editors, Abdominal Wall Hernias: Principles and Management, New York, Springer-Verlag, 2001:272–278Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL, et al. Biomaterials for abdominal wall hernia surgery and principles of their applications. Langenbecks Arch Chir 1994;379:168–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, et al. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 2002;103:208–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greca FH, de Paula JB, Biondo-Simones MLP, et al. The influence of differing pore size on the biocompatibility of two polypropylene meshes in the repair of abdominal defects. Hernia 2001;5:59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldenberg A, Matone J, Marcondes W, et al. Comparative study of inflammatory response and adhesions formation after fixation of different meshes for inguinal hernia repair in rabbits. Acta Cir Bras 2005;20:347–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weyhe D, Schmitz I, Belyaev O, et al. Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response. World J Surg 2006;30:1586–1591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taylor DF, Smith FB. Porous methyl methacrylate as an implant material. J Biomed Mater Res 1972;6:467–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kapischke M, Prinz K, Tepel J, et al. Comparative investigation of alloplastic materials for hernia repair with improved methodology. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1260–1265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Merrit K, Shafer JW, Brown SA. Implant-site infection rates with porous and dense material. J Biomed Mater Res 1979;13:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Langer C, Schwartz P, Krause P, et al. [In-vitro study of the cellular response of human fibroblasts cultured on alloplastic hernia meshes. Influence of mesh material and structure][in German]. Chirurg 2005;76:876–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bellon JM, Garcia-Carranza A, Garcia-Honduvilla N, et al. Tissue integration and biomechanical behaviour of contaminated experimental polypropylene and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants. Br J Surg 2004;91:489–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kirkpatrick CJ. New aspects of biocompatibility testing: where should it be going? Med Device Technol 1998;9:22–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kirkpatrick CJ, Otto M, van Knoten T, et al. Endothelial cell cultures as a tool in biomaterial research. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1999;10:589–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Duchrow M, Windhövel U, Bethge T, et al. [Polypropylene synthetic mesh modifies growth of human cells in vitro. An experimental study][in German] Chirurg 2002;73:154–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weyhe D, Hoffmann P, Belyaev O, et al. The role of TGF-β1 as a determinant of foreign body reaction to alloplastic materials in rat fibroblast cultures: comparison of different commercially available polypropylene meshes for hernia repair. Regul Pept 2006, Sep 11; [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bracco P, Brunella V, Trossarelli L, et al. Comparison of polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate (Dacron) meshes for abdominal wall hernia repair: a chemical and morphological study. Hernia 2005;9:51–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tang L, Hu W. Molecular determinants of biocompatibility. Expert Rev Med Devices 2005;2:493–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ben-Izhak O, Vlodavsky E, Ofer A. Epitheloid angiosarcoma associated with a Dacron vascular graft. Am J Surg Pathol 1999;23:1418–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brand KG, Buoen LC, Brand I. Foreign- body tumorigenesis by vinyl chloride vinyl acetate copolymer: no evidence for chemical cocarcinogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1975;54:1259–1262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kirkpatrick CJ, Alves A, Kohler H, et al. Biomaterial-induced sarcoma: a novel model to study preneoplastic change. Am J Pathol 2000;156:1455–1467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kirkpatrick CJ. [Comment on the editorial paper][in German]. Chirurg 2002;73:158–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nakamura T, Shimizu Y, Okumura N, et al. Tumorgenicity of poly-L-lactide (PLLA) plates compared with medical-grade polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:17–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Peiper C, Klinge U, Junge K, et al. [Meshes in inguinal repair][in German]. Zentralbl Chir 2002;127:573–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    O‘Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG, et al. Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2005;92:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG, et al. Author reply: randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair (Br J Surg 2005; 92: 166–170). Br J Surg 2005;92:655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Amalesh T, Cooper D, Singh A. Letter 1: randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair (Br J Surg 2005; 92:166–170). Br J Surg 2005;92:655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shoab SS. Letter 3: randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair (Br J Surg 2005; 92: 166–170). Br J Surg 2005;92:655–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Holzheimer RG. First results of Lichtenstein hernia repair with Ultrapro-mesh as cost saving procedure—quality control combined with a modified quality of life questionnaire (SF-36) in a series of ambulatory operated patients. Eur J Med Res 2004;9:323–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Post S, Wess B, Willer M, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lightweight composite mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2004;91:44–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Conze J, Kingsnorth AN, Flament JB, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1488–1493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, et al. Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia 2001;5:142–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schmidbauer S, Ladurner R, Hallfeldt KK, et al. Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. Eur J Med Res 2005;10:247–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J, et al. One year results of a randomised controlled multi-centre study comparing Prolene and Vypro II-mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 2005;9:223–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J, et al. Early results of a randomized multicenter trial comparing Prolene and Vypro II mesh in bilateral endoscopic extraperitoneal hernioplasty (TEP). Surg Endosc 2005;19:536–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Heikkinen T, Wollert S, Osterberg J, et al. Early results of a randomised trial comparing Prolene and Vypro II-mesh in endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP) of recurrent unilateral hernias. Hernia 2006;10:34–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Grant AM, Scott NW, O’Dwyer P, on behalf of the MRC Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group. Five- years follow- up of a randomised trial to assess pain and numbness after laparoscopic or open repair of groin hernia. Br J Surg 2004;91:1570–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Douek M, Smith G, Oshowo A, et al. Prospsective randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia mesh repair: five year follow up. BMJ 2003;326:1012–1013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Koninger J, Redecke J, Butters M. Chronic pain after hernia repair: a randomized trial comparing Shouldice, Lichtenstein and TAPP. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2004;389:361–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Alfieri S, Rotondi F, Di Giorgio A, et al. Influence of preservation versus division of ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and genital nerves during open mesh herniorrhaphy: prospective multicentric study of chronic pain. Ann Surg 2006;243:553–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Neumayer L, Giobbie- Hurder A, Jonasson O, et al. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1819–1827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schmedt C-G, Sauerland S, Bittner R. Comparsion of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 2005;19:188–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bittner R, Sauerland S, Schmedt C-G. Comparsion of endoscopic techniques vs Shouldice and other open nonmesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 2005;19:605–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Decker D, Lindemann C, Springer W, et al. Endoscopic vs conventional hernia repair from an immunologic point of view. Surg Endosc 1999;13:335–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Boulanger L, Boukerrou M, Lambaudie E, et al. Tissue integration and tolerance to meshes used in gynecologic surgery: an experimental study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;125:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 2005;12:63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Demirer S, Kepenekci I, Evirgen O, et al. The effect of polypropylene mesh on ilioinguinal nerve in open mesh repair of groin hernia. J Surg Res 2006;131:175–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Weyhe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Orlin Belyaev
    • 1
  • Christophe Müller
    • 1
  • Kirsten Meurer
    • 1
  • Karl-Heinz Bauer
    • 2
  • Georgios Papapostolou
    • 1
  • Waldemar Uhl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgerySt. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryKnappshaftskrankenhaus DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations