pp 1–7 | Cite as

Individual mesh size for open anterior inguinal hernia repair: an anthropometric study in Turkish male patients

  • H. KulacogluEmail author
  • H. Celasin
  • D. Oztuna
Original Article



To conduct a study to determine the measurements of the inguinal region in male patients with inguinal hernias to reveal the proper mesh size for each patient.


In this prospective study, the anthropometric measurements were obtained from 100 consecutive adult male patients with unilateral primary inguinal hernias. First, the distance between the pubic tubercle and the medial border of the deep inguinal ring was measured (x). Second, the distance between the inner edge of the inguinal ligament and the uppermost level of the internal oblique aponeurosis at the midpoint of the inguinal ligament corresponding to the Hesselbach triangle was measured (y). Individual mesh sizes were calculated according to the original recommendations for mesh overlap.


The mean x value was 41.6 mm (22–55 mm), the mean y value was 45.2 mm (30–68 mm). The mean dimensions of the mesh were 126.6 mm × 65.2 mm. The largest mesh was 140 mm × 88 mm, and the smallest one was 107 mm × 62 mm. The mean mesh area was 8320 mm2. It was larger than the index mesh area recommended by the Lichtenstein Hernia Institute in 45 patients and smaller in 55 patients.


The intraoperative measurements for ideal mesh size in Lichtenstein repair of inguinal hernias may present somewhat different mesh dimensions in many patients. Individualization of mesh size may be of importance in surgical outcomes.


Inguinal hernia Mesh Size Lichtenstein repair 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Drs. Kulacoglu, Celasin, and Oztuna have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

The local ethical committee approved the study.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Montgomery J, Dimick JB, Telem DA (2018) Management of groin hernias in adults-2018. JAMA 320:1029–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gong W, Li J (2018) Operation versus watchful waiting in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias: the meta-analysis results of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 52:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22:1–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kulacoglu H (2011) Current options in inguinal hernia repair in adult patients. Hippokratia 15:223–231Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amato B, Moja L, Panico S, Persico G, Rispoli C, Rocco N et al (2012) Shouldice technique versus other open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD001543Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK, Montllor MM (1989) The tension-free hernioplasty. Am J Surg 157:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amid PK (2003) The Lichtenstein repair in 2002: an overview of causes of recurrence after Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty. Hernia 7:13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amid PK (2004) Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty: its inception, evolution, and principles. Hernia 8:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hounnou G, Destrieux C, Desmé J, Bertrand P, Velut S (2002) Anatomical study of the length of the human intestine. Surg Radiol Anat 24:290–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (2016) Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014: a pooled analysis of 1698 population-based measurement studies with 19.2 million participants. Lancet 387:1377–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (2017) Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet 390:2627–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL (1994) Local anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair step-by-step procedure. Ann Surg 220:735–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kulacoglu H (2012) Step-by-step local anesthetic infiltration technique in repair of groin hernias “technical note”. Turk J Surg 28:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campanelli G, Bruni PG, Morlacchi A, Lombardo F, Cavalli M (2017) Primary inguinal hernia: the open repair today pros and cons. Asian J Endosc Surg 10:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miserez M, Alexandre JH, Campanelli G, Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, Pascual MH et al (2007) The European hernia society groin hernia classification: simple and easy to remember. Hernia 11:113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seker D, Oztuna D, Kulacoglu H, Genc Y, Akcil M (2013) Mesh size in Lichtenstein repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the importance of mesh size. Hernia 17:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trabucco EE, Trabucco AF (1998) Flat plug and mesh hernioplasty in the “Inguinal box”: description of the surgical technique. Hernia 2:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pélissier EP (2001) Inguinal hernia: the size of the mesh. Hernia 5:169–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL (1993) Critical scrutiny of the open “tension-free” hernioplasty. Am J Surg 165:369–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Celdrán A, Frieyro O, Souto JL, Villar S (2000) Study of recurrences after anterior open tension-free hernioplasty. Hernia 4:85–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeBord JR (1998) The historical development of prosthetics in hernia surgery. Surg Clin North Am 78:973–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1998) Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 164:965–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakanishi Y, Nethery V (1999) Anthropometric comparison between Japanese and Caucasian American male university students. Appl Human Sci 18:9–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haftenberger M, Lahmann PH, Panico S, Gonzalez CA, Seidell JC, Boeing H et al (2002) Overweight, obesity and fat distribution in 50- to 64-year-old participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Public Health Nutr 5:1147–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kagawa M, Binns CB, Hills AP (2007) Body composition and anthropometry in Japanese and Australian Caucasian males and Japanese females. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 16(Suppl 1):31–36Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Novotny R, Going S, Teegarden D, Van Loan M, McCabe G, McCabe L, Daida YG, Boushey CJ, ACT Research Team (2007) Hispanic and Asian pubertal girls have higher android/gynoid fat ratio than whites. Obesity (Silver Spring) 15:1565–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frisancho AR (2007) Relative leg length as a biological marker to trace the developmental history of individuals and populations: growth delay and increased body fat. Am J Hum Biol 19:703–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harris FI, White AS (1937) The length of the inguinal ligament in the differentiation between direct and indirect inguinal hernia. JAMA 109:1900–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rebustelo E (1938) La conformazione del bacino e la predisposizione alle ernie inguinali. Riv di Chir 4:390–404Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piana C (1947) L’importanza della conformazione del bacino nella genesi dell’ernia inguinale. Arch Ital di Chir 69:209–222Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goffi FS, Leite GM, Pinto PEL (1953) Alguns aspectos da etiopatogenia das hérnias inguinais. Rev Paul Med 43:29–45Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    de Carvalho CA, de Souza RR, Fernandes PM, Waksman H, Fernandes VC (1987) The relationship between anthropometric parameters and measurements of the human inguinal region. Surg Radiol Anat 9:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harissis HV, Georgiou GK (2014) The role of pelvic bone anatomy in the pathogenesis of inguinal hernia. Chirurgia (Bucur) 109:783–787Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Trabucco EE (1993) The office hernioplasty and the Trabucco repair. Ann It Chir 64:127–149Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanjay P, Reid TD, Bowrey DJ, Woodward A (2006) Defining the position of deep inguinal ring in patients with indirect inguinal hernias. Surg Radiol Anat 28:121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wolloscheck T, Konerding MA (2009) Dimensions of the myopectineal orifice: a human cadaver study. Hernia 13:639–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rabe R, Yacapin CP, Buckley BS, Faylona JM (2012) Repeated in vivo inguinal measurements to estimate a single optimal mesh size for inguinal herniorrhaphy. BMC Surg 12:19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anitha B, Aravindhan K, Sureshkumar S, Ali MS, Vijayakumar C, Palanivel C (2018) The ideal size of mesh for open inguinal hernia repair: a morphometric study in patients with inguinal hernia. Cureus 10:e2573Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ankara Hernia CenterAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryLokman Hekim Akay HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsAnkara University Medical SchoolAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations