Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing partially absorbable lightweight mesh and multifilament polyester anatomical mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION

Tension-free mesh repair is currently the gold standard treatment for inguinal hernia. Recent evidence has shown that both open and laparoscopic approaches to inguinal hernia repair can achieve good results. Lots of meshes with different properties are available on the market, but direct comparisons between them are scare. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a partially absorbable lightweight mesh (ULTRAPRO™) and a multifilament polyester anatomical mesh (Parietex™) in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial to compare the surgical handling and clinical outcomes between two different types of meshes. All operations were performed using a standardized operative protocol. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hong Kong East Cluster Health Service in 2009 (reference number: 2009-087). The study was registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12610000031066).

RESULTS

From October 2009 to August 2011, 85 laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repairs were performed. The mean mesh handling time was 152 s for the ULTRAPRO group and 206 s for the Parietex group (P = 0.001). There were three cases of seroma formation in the ULTRAPRO group and nine in the Parietex group (P = 0.02). The overall recurrence rate was 2.5%.

CONCLUSION

It took less time to manipulate the flat mesh (ULTRAPRO) than the anatomical mesh (Parietex) in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair, but the time difference was small. Lightweight mesh and heavyweight mesh offered similar clinical outcomes in terms of discomfort sensation and foreign body sensation during long-term follow-up.