Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

One year results of a randomised controlled multi-centre study comparing Prolene and Vypro II-mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A standard polypropylene mesh used in Lichtenstein’s operation induces a strong foreign tissue reaction with potential harmful effects. A mesh with less polypropylene could possibly be beneficial. Six hundred men with primary unilateral inguinal hernias were randomised to Lichtenstein’s operation using a Prolene- or Vypro II-mesh in six centres. The patients were blinded to which mesh they received. A validated questionnaire assessing recurrence and pain along with SF-36 Health Survey was sent after 1 year to all patients and a selected group was clinically examined. Of the 591 operated patients, 526 (89.0%) returned the questionnaire. 188 patients had some complaints or sensations of which 111 patients were clinically examined. The mean follow-up time was 13.6 (SD. 4.0) months. The incidence of hernia recurrence (four vs. four patients) and neuralgia (three vs. four patients) did not differ between Prolene and Vypro II-groups, respectively. One Vypro II-patient was re-operated due to neuralgia. There was no difference in the SF-36 scores. The results of Lichtenstein’s operation with either Prolene or Vypro II do not seem to differ significantly.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Collaboration EHT (2000) Mesh compared with non-mesh methods of open groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 87:854–859

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Heise CP, Starling JR (1998) Mesh inguinodynia: a new clinical syndrome after inguinal herniorrhaphy?. J Am Coll Surg 187:514–518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, Schumpelick V (1999) Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 165:665–673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Junge K, Klinge U, Rosch R, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2002) Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 26:1472–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schumpelick V, Klinge U (2003) Prosthetic implants for hernia repair. Br J Surg 90:1457–1458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL (1996) Open “tension-free” repair of inguinal hernias: the Lichtenstein technique. Eur J Surg 162:447–453

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sullivan M, Karlsson J (1994) SF-36 Hälsoenkät Manual och tolkningsguide. Sektionen för vårdforskning, Sahlgrenska sjukhuset, Göteborg, Sweden, Göteborg, pp 7:10

  9. Sullivan M, Karlsson J (1998) The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III Evaluation of criterion-based validity: results from normative population. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1105–1113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bringman S, Heikkinen TJ, Wollert S, Osterberg J, Smedberg S, Granlund H, Ramel S, Fellander G, Anderberg B (2004) Early results of a single-blinded, randomized, controlled, Internet-based multicenter trial comparing Prolene and Vypro II mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 8:127–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kald A, Nilsson E (1991) Quality assessment in hernia surgery. Qual Assur Health Care 3:205–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bringman S, Ek A, Haglind E, Heikkinen T, Kald A, Kylberg F, Ramel S, Wallon C, Anderberg B (2001) Is a dissection balloon beneficial in totally extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty (TEP)? A randomized prospective multicenter study. Surg Endosc 15:266–270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Johansson B, Hallerback B, Glise H, Anesten B, Smedberg S, Roman J (1999) Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Ann Surg 230:225–231

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Collaboration EHT (2002) Repair of groin hernia with synthetic mesh: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 235:322–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Poobalan AS, Bruce J, King PM, Chambers WA, Krukowski ZH, Smith WC (2001) Chronic pain and quality of life following open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 88:1122–1126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Callesen T, Bech K, Andersen J, Nielsen R, Roikjaer O, Kehlet H (1999) Pain after primary inguinal herniorrhaphy: influence of surgical technique. J Am Coll Surg 188:355–359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bringman S, Ramel S, Heikkinen TJ, Englund T, Westman B, Anderberg B (2003) Tension-Free Inguinal Hernia Repair: TEP Versus Mesh-Plug Versus Lichtenstein: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 237:142–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sullivan M, Karlsson J (1994) SF-36 Hälsoenkät Manual och tolkningsguide. Sektionen för vårdforskning, Sahlgrenska sjukhuset, Göteborg, Sweden, Göteborg

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to RN Cajsa Barthelsson, RN Christina Lindblom, RN Sirpa Jämsä, Secr. Carina Törnkvist. and Secr. Lise-Lotte Lindh, for their skilful work in the study. Financial support: The study was supported by a grant from Ethicon Scandinavia, Ethicon Europe and from the County Council of Stockholm.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Surgical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Surgery, Södertälje Hospital, 15286, Södertälje, Sweden

    S. Bringman

  2. Department of Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

    S. Wollert & G. Felländer

  3. Department of Surgery, Mora Hospital, Mora, Sweden

    J. Österberg

  4. Department of Surgery, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden

    S. Smedberg

  5. Center for Surgical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Surgery, Södertälje Hospital, Södertälje, Sweden

    H. Granlund

  6. Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland

    T. Heikkinen

Authors
  1. S. Bringman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Wollert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Österberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Smedberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Granlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Felländer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. Heikkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Bringman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bringman, S., Wollert, S., Österberg, J. et al. One year results of a randomised controlled multi-centre study comparing Prolene and Vypro II-mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 9, 223–227 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-005-0324-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-005-0324-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation