Martínez–Munive A, Medina Ramírez-Llaca O, Hesiquio-Silva R, Quijano–Orvañanos F, Padilla-Longoria R, Álvarez–Castillo O

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 256-259
PDF size: 64.10 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine whether a light mesh (LM), partially absorbable, modifies the collateral effects related to the habitual heavy polypropylene meshes (rigidity and inguinodynia) without increasing the number of recurrences.
Setting: Third level health care hospital.
Design: Prospective randomized study.
Statistical analysis: Student’s t test, chi square.
Patients and methods: Sixty-four patients with unilateral inguinal primary hernia were divided in two groups: 32 for the light, partially absorbable, mesh (LM) study and 32 for the control group with polypropylene mesh (PP), operated with the Lichtenstein technique. Follow-up was based on clinical examination and a questionnaire applied 7 days, 4 weeks, and 6 months after surgery, as well as via telephone inquiries at 1, 2, and 3 years, mainly asking about incapacity produced by pain and/or rigidity in the groin area.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found between both groups, except for a lower rigidity in the LM group at 1 and 6 months after surgery (p ‹ 0.001); the rigidity risk at the site of the PP mesh was 10 times higher than in the LM group.
Conclusion: A better tolerance at short- and mid-terms was found with the LM implant, with a decrease in the rigidity risk, without compromising the Lichtenstein technique.

REFERENCES

1. Vrijland WW, van den Tol MP, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Busschbach JJ, de Lange DC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of non-mesh versus mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 293-7.

2. Shulman AG, Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. A survey of non-expert surgeons using the open tension-free mesh patch repair for primary inguinal hernias. Int Surg 1995; 80: 35-6.

3. Voyles CR, Hamilton BJ, Johnson WD, Kano N. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic inguinal hernia trials favors open hernia repair with preperitoneal mesh prosthesis. Am J Surg 2002; 184: 6-10.

4. Testini M, Miniello S, Piccinni G, Di Venere B, Lissidini G, Greco L, et al. Trabucco versus Rutkow versus Lichtenstein techniques in the treatment of groin hernia. A controlled randomized clinical trial. Minerva Chir 2002; 57: 371-6.

5. Lichtenstein IL, Shore JM. Simplified repair of femoral and recurrent inguinal hernias by a “plug” technic. Am J Surg 1974; 128: 439-44.

6. Usher FC. Hernia repair with knitted polypropylene mesh. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1963; 117: 239-40.

7. Junge K, Klinge U, Rosch R, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V. Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 2002; 26: 1472-80.

8. Heise CP, Starling JR. Mesh inguinodynia: a new clinical syndrome after inguinal herniorrhaphy? J Am Coll Surg 1998; 187: 514-8.

9. Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H. Danish Hernia Database. Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 1-7.

10. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Conze J, Limberg W, Obolenski B, Ottinger AP, et al. Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. Eur J Surg 1998; 164: 951-60.

11. Martinez-Munive A, Medina Ramirez-Llaca O, Hesiquio-Silva R, Quijano-Orvañanos F, Padilla-Longoria R. Comparison between polypropylene and minimized-polypropylene mesh in the incidence of postoperative stiffness and pain in inguinal hernioplasty (Initial experience). Hernia Repair 2001: New Orleans LO. Abstract P9: 142.