Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prosthetic Options: Advantages and Disadvantages

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Principles in Inguinal Hernia Repair

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ramshaw B, Grant S. Biology of prosthetics. In: Kingsnorth ALK, editor. Abdominal hernias. London: Springer; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Neill SM, Chen DC, Amid PK In: Novitsky YW, editor. Hernia Surgery: Current Principles. Switzerland: Springer; 2016. p437–49

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hernia Repair JM. Now and in the future. In: Campanelli G, editor. Inguinal hernia. Philadelphia: Springer; 2017. p. 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen DK, Amid PK, Chen DC. Groin pain after inguinal hernia repair. Adv Surg. 2016;50:203–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cobb WS, Peindl RM, Zerey M, Carbonell AM, Heniford BT. Mesh terminology 101. Hernia. 2009;13:1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Earle DB, Mark LA. Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88:179–201. x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coda A, Lamberti R, Martorana S. Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial. Hernia. 2012;16:9–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Novitsky YW. Biology of biological meshes used in hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93:1211–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. LeBlanc K. Meshes for inguinal hernia repair. In: Campanelli G, editor. Inguinal hernia surgery: Philadelphia: Springer; 2017. p. 143–9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hyllegaard GM, Friis-Andersen H. Modified laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh in complicated inguinal hernia surgery. Hernia. 2015;19:433–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Yuri W. Novitsky & Luis A. Martin-del-Campo

Authors
  1. Yuri W. Novitsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis A. Martin-del-Campo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Melissa Phillips LaPinska

  2. Department of Surgery, Washington University Medical Center, Department of Surgery, St Louis, MO, USA

    Jeffrey A. Blatnik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Novitsky, Y.W., Martin-del-Campo, L.A. (2018). Prosthetic Options: Advantages and Disadvantages. In: LaPinska, M., Blatnik, J. (eds) Surgical Principles in Inguinal Hernia Repair . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92892-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92892-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92891-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92892-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation