Individual mesh size for open anterior inguinal hernia repair: an anthropometric study in Turkish male patients
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.
KeywordsInguinal 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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Kulacoglu H (2011) Current options in inguinal hernia repair in adult patients. Hippokratia 15:223–231Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 29.Rebustelo E (1938) La conformazione del bacino e la predisposizione alle ernie inguinali. Riv di Chir 4:390–404Google Scholar
- 30.Piana C (1947) L’importanza della conformazione del bacino nella genesi dell’ernia inguinale. Arch Ital di Chir 69:209–222Google Scholar
- 31.Goffi FS, Leite GM, Pinto PEL (1953) Alguns aspectos da etiopatogenia das hérnias inguinais. Rev Paul Med 43:29–45Google Scholar
- 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.Trabucco EE (1993) The office hernioplasty and the Trabucco repair. Ann It Chir 64:127–149Google Scholar
- 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