Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight or heavyweight mesh for mesh plug repair of primary inguinal hernia

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

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to assess whether the application of a lightweight mesh for mesh plug repair (MPR) for primary inguinal hernia could reduce chronic pain or other symptoms associated with the insertion of the prosthesis.

Methods

Patients over 20 years of age with a unilateral primary inguinal hernia were eligible to participate in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to a lightweight mesh (LWM) or a heavyweight mesh (HWM) group. All the operations were performed under local anesthesia. The operative details, including the hernia type and the nerves that were identified, and the postoperative complications were recorded. All follow-up and outcome measures were obtained based on a physical examination and a questionnaire regarding pain and other symptoms at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the surgery in a double-blinded manner.

Results

The use of LWM significantly reduced foreign body sensation after 12 months to one-third of the incidence reported for the use of HWM (5.8 vs. 17.9 %; P = 0.013), while no significant differences were found in pain parameters, including the use of pain relief medications, between the groups throughout the study period.

Conclusion

This study indicated that the use of LWM in the MPR decreases the incidence of foreign body sensation at 1 year after surgery for primary inguinal hernia. LWM may be preferable to MPR, similar to results described previously for Lichtenstein 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L, Malmstrom J, Andersen FH, Wara P et al (2001) Quality assessment of 26,304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 358:1124–1128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Awad SS, Fagan SP (2004) Current approaches to inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 188:9S–16S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG, Small PK, Lammers B, Horeyseck G (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 

  4. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 99:29–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Uzzaman MM, Ratnasingham K, Ashraf N (2012) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 16:505–518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK, Montllor MM (1989) The tension-free hernioplasty. Am J Surg 157:188–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhao G, Gao P, Ma B, Tian J, Yang K (2009) Open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 250:35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nienhuijs SW, van Oort I, Keemers-Gels ME, Strobbe LJ, Rosman C (2005) Randomized trial comparing the Prolene Hernia System, mesh plug repair and Lichtenstein method for open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 92:33–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Frey DM, Wildisen A, Hamel CT, Zuber M, Oertli D, Metzger J (2007) Randomized clinical trial of Lichtenstein’s operation versus mesh plug for inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 94:36–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nienhuijs S, Kortmann B, Boerma M, Strobbe L, Rosman C (2004) Preferred mesh-based inguinal hernia repair in a teaching setting: results of a randomized study. Arch Surg 139:1097–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dalenback J, Andersson C, Anesten B, Bjorck S, Eklund S, Magnusson O et al (2009) Prolene Hernia System, Lichtenstein mesh and plug-and-patch for primary inguinal hernia repair: 3-year outcome of a prospective randomised controlled trial. The BOOP study: bi-layer and connector, on-lay, and on-lay with plug for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 13:121–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Robbins AW, Rutkow IM (1998) Mesh plug repair and groin hernia surgery. Surg Clin North Am 78:1007–1023

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U (2005) The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2:103–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Silvestre AC, de Mathia GB, Fagundes DJ, Medeiros LR, Rosa MI (2011) Shrinkage evaluation of heavyweight and lightweight polypropylene meshes in inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia 15:629–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Amid PK (2004) Causes, prevention, and surgical treatment of postherniorrhaphy neuropathic inguinodynia: triple neurectomy with proximal end implantation. Hernia 8:343–349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mui WL, Ng CS, Fung TM, Cheung FK, Wong CM, Ma TH et al (2006) Prophylactic ilioinguinal neurectomy in open inguinal hernia repair: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 244:27–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ravichandran D, Kalambe BG, Pain JA (2000) Pilot randomized controlled study of preservation or division of ilioinguinal nerve in open mesh repair of inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 87:1166–1167

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dittrick GW, Ridl K, Kuhn JA, McCarty TM (2004) Routine ilioinguinal nerve excision in inguinal hernia repairs. Am J Surg 188:736–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pappalardo G, Guadalaxara A, Illomei G, d’Orta C, Frattaroli FM (1999) Prevention of postherniorrhaphy persistent pain: results of a prospective study. Int Surg 84:350–353

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pappalardo G, Frattaroli FM, Mongardini M, Salvi PF, Lombardi A, Conte AM et al (2007) Neurectomy to prevent persistent pain after inguinal herniorraphy: a prospective study using objective criteria to assess pain. World J Surg 31:1081–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Alfieri S, Rotondi F, Di Giorgio A, Fumagalli U, Salzano A, Di Miceli D et al (2006) Influence of preservation versus division of ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and genital nerves during open mesh herniorrhaphy: prospective multicentric study of chronic pain. Ann Surg 243:553–558

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beldi G, Haupt N, Ipaktchi R, Wagner M, Candinas D (2008) Postoperative hypoesthesia and pain: qualitative assessment after open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 22:129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Singh AN, Bansal VK, Misra MC, Kumar S, Rajeshwari S, Kumar A et al (2012) Testicular functions, chronic groin pain, and quality of life after laparoscopic and open mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26:1304–1317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B, Memon MI, Abrams KR (2003) Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 90:1479–1492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Neumayer LA, Gawande AA, Wang J, Giobbie-Hurder A, Itani KM, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr et al (2005) Proficiency of surgeons in inguinal hernia repair: effect of experience and age. Ann Surg 242:344–348 (discussion 348–352)

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Langeveld HR, van’t Riet M, Weidema WF, Stassen LP, Steyerberg EW, Lange J et al (2010) Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein (the LEVEL-trial): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251:819–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

TH declares that his institution has received a grant support for this study from Johnson & Johnson company. YT declares no conflict of interest. SK declares that his institution has received a grant support for this study from Johnson & Johnson company. YS declares that his institution has received a grant support for this study from Johnson & Johnson company. ES declares that his institution has received a grant support for this study from Johnson & Johnson company. SN declares that his institution has received a grant support for this study from Johnson & Johnson company. HH declares that his institution has received a grant support for this study from Johnson & Johnson company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital, 2-9 Myoken-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya City, Aichi, 466-8650, Japan

    T. Hirose, S. Komatsu, Y. Shingu, E. Sakamoto, S. Norimizu & H. Hasegawa

  2. Department of Surgery, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, 4-86 Minaminokawa-cho, Ogaki City, Gifu, 503-8502, Japan

    Y. Takayama

Authors
  1. T. Hirose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y. Takayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Komatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y. Shingu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Norimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. Hasegawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Shingu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hirose, T., Takayama, Y., Komatsu, S. et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight or heavyweight mesh for mesh plug repair of primary inguinal hernia. Hernia 18, 213–219 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1105-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1105-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation