, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 221–230 | Cite as

Early report of a randomized comparative clinical trial of Strattice™ reconstructive tissue matrix to lightweight synthetic mesh in the repair of inguinal hernias

  • C. F. BellowsEmail author
  • P. Shadduck
  • W. S. Helton
  • R. Martindale
  • B. C. Stouch
  • R. Fitzgibbons
Original Article



Biologic grafts are rarely used for inguinal herniorrhaphy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between patients undergoing a Lichtenstein’s hernioplasty with a porcine mesh versus a standard synthetic.


A prospective, randomized, double-blinded multicenter, evaluation of inguinal hernia repair was conducted between 2008 and 2010. Lichtenstein hernioplasty was performed using Strattice™ or lightweight polypropylene (Ultrapro) mesh. Quality of life, pain, overall complication rate, and recurrence were measured.


One hundred and seventy-two patients were randomized to Strattice™ (n = 84) or Ultrapro (n = 88). At 3 months postoperatively, there were no differences on the occurrence or type of wound events [RR: 0.98 (95 % CI 0.52–1.86, p = 0.69), Strattice™ (15 events) vs. Ultrapro (16 events)]. The mean level of impairment caused by the hernia, assessed by Activities Assessment Scale (AAS), significantly decreased postoperatively in both groups at 3 months (31 % Strattice™ and 37 % Ultrapro). Patients in the Strattice group reported significantly less postoperative pain during postoperative days 1 through 3 compared to Ultrapro patients. However, the amount of postoperative pain at 3 months, as assessed by the mean worst pain score on a visual analog scale and the Brief Pain Index, was similar between groups (95 % CI 1.0–29.3). No hernia recurrences were observed in either group.


Strattice™ is safe and effective in repairing inguinal hernia, with comparable intra-operative and early postoperative morbidity to synthetic mesh. Long-term follow-up is necessary in order to know whether the clinical outcomes of Strattice are equivalent to standard synthetic mesh in patients undergoing Lichtenstein’s hernioplasty.


Inguinal hernia Biologic mesh Porcine dermis matrix 


Conflict of interest

All authors declare having received grant support in relation to this study from LifeCell Corporation.


  1. 1.
    McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM, EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Association for the Study of Pain (1986) Classification of chronic pain. Descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms. Prepared by the International Association for the Study of Pain, Subcommittee on Taxonomy. Pain Suppl 3:S1–S226Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nienhuijs S, Staal E, Strobbe L, Rosman C, Groenewould H, Bleichrodt R (2007) Chronic pain after mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review. Am J Surg 194:394–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Vita G, Patti R, Barrera T, Arcoleo F, Ferlazzo V, Cillari E (2010) Impact of heavy polypropylene mesh and composite light polypropylene and polyglactin 910 on the inflammatory response. Surg Innov 17:229–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, Junge K, Conze J, Schumpelick V (2002) Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 103:208–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornwell KG, Landsman A, James KS (2009) Extracellular matrix biomaterials for soft tissue repair. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 26:507–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellows CF, Shadduck PP, Helton WS, Fitzgibbons RJ (2011) The design of an industry-sponsored randomized controlled trial to compare synthetic mesh versus biologic mesh for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 15:325–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellows CF, Alder A, Helton WS (2006) Abdominal wall reconstruction using biological tissue grafts: present status and future opportunities. Expert Rev Med Devices 3:657–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holzheimer RG (2004) 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 9:323–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarthy M Jr, Jonasson O, Chang CH, Pickard AS, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gibbs J, Edelman P, Fitzgibbons R, Neumayer L (2005) Assessment of patient functional status after surgery. J Am Coll Surg 201:171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cleeland CS (2009) The brief pain inventory user guide. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TXGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rutkow IM (1998) Epidemiologic, economic, and sociologic aspects of hernia surgery in the United States in the 1990s. Surg Clin North Am 78:941–951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, Gazzotti F, D’Alessandro L, Pinna AD (2009) Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s repair with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis Inguinal Hernia Matrix. Am J Surg 198:303–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Puccio F, Solazzo M, Marciano P (2005) Comparison of three different mesh materials in tension-free inguinal hernia repair: prolene versus Vypro versus surgisis. Int Surg 90(3 Suppl):S21–S23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ridgway DM, Mahmond F, Moore L, Stojkovic S, Al-Mukhtar A, Moore PJ (2005) A prospective double blinded randomised control trial comparing porcine dermal collagen with polypropylene mesh for inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 92:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Alam F, Tang TY, Walsh SR, Sadat U (2010) Partially or completely absorbable versus nonabsorbable mesh repair for inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:213–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gao M, Han J, Tian J, Yang K (2010) Vypro II mesh for inguinal hernia repair: a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 251:838–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sajid MS, Leaver C, Baig MK, Sains P (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 99:29–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. F. Bellows
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. Shadduck
    • 2
  • W. S. Helton
    • 3
  • R. Martindale
    • 4
  • B. C. Stouch
    • 5
  • R. Fitzgibbons
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Surgery SL-22Tulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina Specialty Hospital and Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryVirginia Mason Medical CenterSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryOregon Health Sciences CenterPortlandUSA
  5. 5.Department BiostatisticsThe Philadelphia College of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryCreighton UniversityOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations