Advertisement

Prosthetic Options: Advantages and Disadvantages

  • Yuri W. Novitsky
  • Luis A. Martin-del-Campo
Chapter

Abstract

The use of mesh revolutionized the hernia surgery field by providing for a tension-free repair method for fascial defects. There are many different commercially available options for inguinal hernia prosthetic reinforcement, and every surgeon must have the knowledge to make an educated choice for a needed prosthetic. The chosen mesh should facilitate an adequate repair while matching a specific clinical scenario as well as the patient’s goals. This chapter describes the features of frequently used mesh options as well as our own algorithm for prosthetics selection in groin hernia repair.

Keywords

Mesh Prosthetic Hernia Inguinal Groin 

References

  1. 1.
    Ramshaw B, Grant S. Biology of prosthetics. In: Kingsnorth ALK, editor. Abdominal hernias. London: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott NW, McCormack K, Graham P, Go PM, Ross SJ, Grant AM. Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;2002:CD002197.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pickett L. Prosthetic choice in open inguinal hernia repair. In: Jacob B, Ramshaw B, editors. The SAGES manual of hernia repair. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, et al. Danish hernia database recommendations for the management of inguinal and femoral hernia in adults. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58:C4243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Neill SM, Chen DC, Amid PK In: Novitsky YW, editor. Hernia Surgery: Current Principles. Switzerland: Springer; 2016. p437–49Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hernia Repair JM. Now and in the future. In: Campanelli G, editor. Inguinal hernia. Philadelphia: Springer; 2017. p. 37–42.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nguyen DK, Amid PK, Chen DC. Groin pain after inguinal hernia repair. Adv Surg. 2016;50:203–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cobb WS, Peindl RM, Zerey M, Carbonell AM, Heniford BT. Mesh terminology 101. Hernia. 2009;13:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Earle DB, Mark LA. Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88:179–201. xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coda A, Lamberti R, Martorana S. Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial. Hernia. 2012;16:9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silvestre AC, de Mathia GB, Fagundes DJ, Medeiros LR, Rosa MI. Shrinkage evaluation of heavyweight and lightweight polypropylene meshes in inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia. 2011;15:629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orenstein S, Novitsky YW. Synthetic mesh choices for surgical repair. In: Rosen MJ, editor. Atlas of abdomial wall reconstruction: Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012. p. 322–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Novitsky YW. Biology of biological meshes used in hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93:1211–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bochicchio GV, Jain A, McGonigal K, et al. Biologic vs synthetic inguinal hernia repair: 1-year results of a randomized double-blinded trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:751–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bellows CF, Shadduck P, Helton WS, Martindale R, Stouch BC, Fitzgibbons R. Early report of a randomized comparative clinical trial of Strattice reconstructive tissue matrix to lightweight synthetic mesh in the repair of inguinal hernias. Hernia. 2014;18:221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sadowski B, Rodriguez J, Symmonds R, et al. Comparison of polypropylene versus polyester mesh in the Lichtenstein hernia repair with respect to chronic pain and discomfort. Hernia. 2011;15:643–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Uzzaman MM, Ratnasingham K, Ashraf N. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2012;16:505–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sajid MS, Leaver C, Baig MK, Sains P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2012;99:29–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smietanski M, Smietanska IA, Modrzejewski A, Simons MP, Aufenacker TJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis on heavy and lightweight polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. Hernia. 2012;16:519–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Junge K, Binnebosel M, Rosch R, et al. Influence of mesh materials on the integrity of the vas deferens following Lichtenstein hernioplasty: an experimental model. Hernia. 2008;12:621–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miserez M, Peeters E, Aufenacker T, et al. Update with level 1 studies of the European hernia society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2014;18:151–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Currie A, Andrew H, Tonsi A, Hurley PR, Taribagil S. Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2126–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sajid MS, Kalra L, Parampalli U, Sains PS, Baig MK. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of lightweight mesh against heavyweight mesh in influencing the incidence of chronic groin pain following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2013;205:726–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burgmans JP, Voorbrood CE, Simmermacher RK, et al. Long-term results of a randomized double-blinded prospective trial of a lightweight (Ultrapro) versus a heavyweight mesh (Prolene) in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TULP-trial). Ann Surg. 2016;263:862–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Alam F, Tang TY, Walsh SR, Sadat U. Partially or completely absorbable versus nonabsorbable mesh repair for inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2010;20:213–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sanders DL, Nienhuijs S, Ziprin P, Miserez M, Gingell-Littlejohn M, Smeds S. Randomized clinical trial comparing self-gripping mesh with suture fixation of lightweight polypropylene mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1373–82. discussion 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chatzimavroudis G, Papaziogas B, Koutelidakis I, et al. Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair using polypropylene mesh fixed with sutures vs. self-fixating polypropylene mesh: a prospective randomized comparative study. Hernia. 2014;18:193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fumagalli Romario U, Puccetti F, Elmore U, Massaron S, Rosati R. Self-gripping mesh versus staple fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a prospective comparison. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1798–802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bresnahan E, Bates A, Wu A, Reiner M, Jacob B. The use of self-gripping (Progrip) mesh during laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair: a prospective feasibility and long-term outcomes study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2690–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    LeBlanc K. Meshes for inguinal hernia repair. In: Campanelli G, editor. Inguinal hernia surgery: Philadelphia: Springer; 2017. p. 143–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tran H, Tran K, Zajkowska M, Lam V, Hawthorne WJ. Single-port onlay mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernias after failed anterior and laparoscopic repairs. JSLS. 2015;19:e2014 00212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hyllegaard GM, Friis-Andersen H. Modified laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh in complicated inguinal hernia surgery. Hernia. 2015;19:433–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuri W. Novitsky
    • 1
  • Luis A. Martin-del-Campo
    • 1
  1. 1.Columbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations