Comparison of Three Types of Hernioplasty Using Meshes for Adult Inguinal Hernia: Lichtenstein, Mesh-plug, Prolene Hernia System

Chan Joong Choi; Ki Jae Park; Sung Heun Kim

doi:10.4174/jkss.2009.76.2.109

Journal List > J Korean Surg Soc > v.76(2) > 1010921

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi, Park, and Kim: Comparison of Three Types of Hernioplasty Using Meshes for Adult Inguinal Hernia: Lichtenstein, Mesh-plug, Prolene Hernia System

Original Article

Journal of the Korean Surgical Society

Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 2009; 76(2): 109-114.

Published online: 28 February 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2009.76.2.109

Comparison of Three Types of Hernioplasty Using Meshes for Adult Inguinal Hernia: Lichtenstein, Mesh-plug, Prolene Hernia System

Chan Joong Choi, M.D., Ki Jae Park, M.D., Sung Heun Kim, M.D.

Department of Surgery, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

ksheun@dau.ac.kr

Received 15 May 2008 Accepted 12 September 2008

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare three types of hernioplasty using a mesh: Lichtenstein, Mesh-plug and Prolene Hernia System.

Methods

From February 2002 to April 2007, we retrospectively studied the clinical outcome of 138 cases of adult inguinal hernia patients who had operations performed with the use of mesh. Three types of mesh operations were composed of Lichtenstein repair group (LR group; N=18), Mesh plug repair group (MR group; N=38) and Prolene hernia system group (PHS group; N=82). The Clinical features and outcomes of the three groups were compared by age, sex, operation time, lengths of hospital stay, numbers of post-operative intravenous analgesics, complications, and recurrence.

Results

Mean age of three groups was 50.2±20.7, 51.0±18.4 and 61.5±15.9 years for LR. MR, PHS groups, respectively. The PHS group was significantly older than other two groups (P=0.002). The sex, operation time and lengths of hospital stay were not significantly different among the three groups. Numbers of intravenous analgesics used after the operations were 1.7±1.2, 2.7±2.2, 3.3±2.0 in the LR, MR, PHS groups, respectively. A lesser amount of IV analgesics was injected into the LR group than the PHS group. Although some complications occurred such as wound infection, hematoma, dehiscence, testicular edema in the three groups, there were no significant differences among the three groups. There were no recurrences in all three groups.

Conclusion

We could not find any better outcome among the LR, MR and PHS groups.

Keywords: Inguinal hernia, Lichtenstein repair, Mesh-plug repair, Prolene Hernia System

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Comparison of the three groups by age and sex distribution

^*LR = Lichtenstein repair; ^†MR = Mesh-plug repair; ^‡PHS = Prolene Hernia System.

Table 2

Comparison of the three groups by type of hernia

^*LR = Lichtenstein repair; ^†MR = Mesh-plug repair; ^‡PHS = Prolene Hernia System.

Table 3

Comparison of the three groups by type of anesthesia

^*LR = Lichtenstein repair; ^†MR = Mesh-plug repair; ^‡PHS = Prolene Hernia System.

Table 4

Comparison of the three groups by postoperative outcomes

^*LR = Lichtenstein repair; ^†MR = Mesh-plug repair; ^‡PHS = Prolene Hernia System.

Table 5

Comparison of the three groups by postoperative complications and recurrences

^*LR = Lichtenstein repair; ^†MR = Mesh-plug repair; ^‡PHS = Prolene Hernia System; ^§NS = not significant.

References

1. Awad SS, Fagan SP. Current approaches to inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2004. 188:6A Suppl. 9S–16S.

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

3. Rutkow IM, Robbins AW. "Tension-free" inguinal herniorrhaphy: a preliminary report on the "mesh plug" technique. Surgery. 1993. 114:3–8.

4. Min HS, Shin DW, Kim ID, Kim KH, Suh BS, Kim SW, et al. Comparison between Lichtenstein and Prolene Hernia System (PHS) in anterior tension-free, inguinal & femoral hernioplasty. J Korean Surg Soc. 2006. 71:39–42.

5. Kim HC, Chung M. 120 cases of hernia repair with bilayer patch (Prolene Hernia System). J Korean Surg Soc. 2006. 70:204–208.

6. Lichtenstein IL, Shore JM. Exploding the myths of hernia repair. Am J Surg. 1976. 132:307–315.

7. Shearburn EW, Myers RN. Shouldice repair for inguinal hernia. Surgery. 1969. 66:450–459.

8. Glassow F. Inguinal hernia repair. A comparison of the Shouldice and Cooper ligament repair of the posterior inguinal wall. Am J Surg. 1976. 131:306–311.

9. Barbier J, Carretier M, Richer JP. Cooper ligament repair: an update. World J Surg. 1989. 13:499–505.

10. Park BS, Park CI, Lee SB, Moon DJ. A clinical comparison of the mesh method with the conventional herniorrhaphy in adult inguinal hernia. J Korean Surg Soc. 2003. 65:241–246.

11. Gilbert AI, Graham MF, Voigt WJ. A bilayer patch device for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 1999. 3:161–166.

12. Bittner R, Sauerland S, Schmedt CG. Comparison of endoscopic techniques vs Shouldice and other open nonmesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2005. 19:605–615.

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

TOOLS

Similar articles