Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal groin hernia repair

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purported advantage of lightweight large-pore meshes is improved biocompatibility that translates into lesser postoperative pain and earlier rehabilitation. However, there are concerns of increased hernia recurrence rate. We undertook a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare early and late outcome measures with the use of a lightweight (Ultrapro) mesh and heavyweight (Prolene) mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) groin hernia repair.

Methods

A prospective study was performed on 402 patients (191 in Ultrapro and 211 in Prolene group) with bilateral groin hernias who underwent endoscopic TEP groin hernia repair from March 2006 to June 2007. All operations were performed by five consultants following a standardized operative protocol. Chronic groin pain and hernia recurrence were evaluated as primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measure were early postoperative pain, operative time, number of fixation devices required to fix the mesh, return to normal daily activities of work, seroma, and testicular pain.

Results

At 1-year follow-up, incidence in Ultrapro versus Prolene group for chronic groin pain was 1.6% vs. 4.7% (p = 0.178) and recurrence was 1.3% vs. 0.2% (p = 0.078). In Ultrapro versus Prolene group, mean visual analogue score for postoperative pain at day 7 was 1.07 vs. 1.31 (p = 0.00), mean return to normal activities was 1.82 vs. 2.09 days (p = 0.00), and mean number of fixation devices per patient required to fix the mesh was 4.22 vs. 4.08 (p = 0.043).

Conclusion

Lightweight meshes appear to have advantages in terms of lesser pain and early return to normal activity. However, more patients had hernia recurrence with lightweight meshes, especially for larger hernias. We surmise that the lightweight meshes have greater tendency to get displaced from their intended position during desufflation at the conclusion of endoscopic TEP repair.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bay-Nielsen M, Nordin P, Nilsson E, Kehlet H (2001) Operative findings in recurrent herna after a Lichtenstein procedure. Am J Surg 182:134–136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellon JM, Lopez-Hervas P, Rodriguez M, Garica-Honduvilla N, Pascual G, Bujan J (2006) Midline abdominal wall closure: a new prophylactic mesh concept. J Am Coll Surg 203:490–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, Boelhouwer RU, de Vries BC, Salu MK, Wereldsna JC, Bruijninckx CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klinge U, Conze J, Limberg W, Brucker C, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1996) Pathophysiology of the abdominal wall. Chirurg 67:229–233

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan LR, Kumar S, Nixon SJ (2006) Early results for new light-weight mesh in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 10:303–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bringman S, Wollert S, Ostgerberg J, Heikkinen T (2005) Early results of a randomized multicenter trial comparing Prolene and Vypro II mesh in bilateral endoscopic extraperitoneal hernioplasty (TEP). Surg Endosc 19:536–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J, Smedberg S, Granlund H, Heikkinen TJ (2006) Three-year results of a randomized clinical trial of lightweight or standard polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 93:1056–1059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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–S23

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG, Small PK (2005) Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 92:166–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Post S, Weiss B, Willer M, Neufang T, Lorenz D (2004) Randomized clinical trial of lightweight composite mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 91:44–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Horstmann R, Hellwig M, Classen C, Rottgermann S, Palmes D (2006) Impact of polypropylene amount on functional outcome and quality of life after inguinal hernia repair by the TAPP procedure using pure, mixed, and titanium-coated meshes. World J Surg 30:1742–1749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heikkinen T, Wollert S, Osterberg J, Smedberg S, Bringman S (2006) Early results of a randomised trial comparing Prolene and VyproII-mesh in endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP) of recurrent unilateral hernias. Hernia 10:34–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Akolekar D, Kumar S, Khan LR, de Benux AC, Nixon SJ (2008) Comparison of recurrence with lightweight composite polypropylene mesh and heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an audit of 1,232 repairs. Hernia 12:39–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bowne WB, Morgenthal CB, Castro AE, Shah P, Ferzli GS (2007) The role of endoscopic extraperitoneal herniorrhaphy: where do we stand in 2005? Surg Endosc 21(5):707–712

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Agarwal BB, Agarwal KA, Mahajan KC (2009) Prospective double-blind randomized controlled study comparing heavy and lightweight polypropylene mesh in totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: early results. Surg Endosc 23:242–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12:63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Kockerling F (2004) In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty. Surg Endosc 18:211–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fitzgibbons RJ, Ahluwalia HS (2005) Inguinal Hernias. In: Brunicardi FC (ed) Schwartz’s principles of surgery, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, USA, pp 1353–1394

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fitzgibbons RJ Jr (2005) Can we be sure polypropylene mesh causes infertility? Ann Surg 241(4):559–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Gersin KS, Norton HJ, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics four months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 21(7):1170–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Loos MJA, Roumen RMH, Scheltinga MRM (2007) Classifying postherniorrhaphy pain syndromes following elective inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 31(9):1760–1765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shin D, Lipshultz LI, Goldstein M, Barmé GA, Fuchs EF, Nagler HM, McCallum SW, Niederberger CS, Schoor RA, Brugh VM 3rd, Honig SC (2005) Herniorrhaphy with polypropylene mesh causing inguinal vasal obstruction: a preventable cause of obstructive azoospermia. Ann Surg 241(4):553–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kes E, Lange J, Bonjer J, Stoeckart R, Mulder P, Snijders C, Kleinrensink G (2004) Protrusion of prosthetic meshes in repair of inguinal hernias. Surgery 135:163–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Knook MTT, van Rosmalen AC, Yoder BE, Kleinrensink GJ, Snijders CJ, Looman CWN, van Steensel CJ (2001) Optimal mesh size for endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a study in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 15:1471–1477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nienhuijs S, Staal E, Strobbe L, Rosman C, Groenewoud H, Bleichrodt R (2007) Chronic pain after mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review. Am J Surg 194:394–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hollinsky C, Sandberg S, Koch T et al (2008) Biomechanical properties of lightweight versus heavyweight meshes for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and their impact on recurrence rates. Surg Endosc 22:2679–2685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R et al (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350:1819–1827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmedt C-G, Sauerland S, Bittner R (2005) Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19:188–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bittner R, Sauerland S, Schmedt C-G (2005) Comparison of endoscopic techniques vs Shouldice and other open non-mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19:605–615

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen M, Danish Hernia Database Collaboration (2005) Nationwide quality improvement of groin hernia repair from the Danish Hernia Database of 87,840 patients from 1998 to 2005. Hernia 12(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Authors P. K. Chowbey, N. Garg, A. Sharma, R. Khullar, V. Soni, M. Baijal, and T. Mittal have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Institute of Minimal Access, Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Max Healthcare, Saket, New Delhi, 110 017, India

    P. K. Chowbey, N. Garg, A. Sharma, R. Khullar, V. Soni, M. Baijal & T. Mittal

  2. AYUSHMAN Endosurgery, D.S. MKT, R-Block, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, 110 060, India

    P. K. Chowbey

Authors
  1. P. K. Chowbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Garg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Khullar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. Soni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Baijal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. Mittal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. K. Chowbey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chowbey, P.K., Garg, N., Sharma, A. et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal groin hernia repair. Surg Endosc 24, 3073–3079 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1092-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1092-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation