Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Shrinkage evaluation of heavyweight and lightweight polypropylene meshes in inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial

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

Abstract

Background

One of the current complications in inguinal repair is shrinkage following the use of mesh. The selected mesh material, heavyweight (HWM) mesh or lightweight (LWM) mesh, is associated with the frequency of shrinkage. The aim of this study was to investigate shrinkage of these two types of mesh in a controlled trial of male inguinal hernia repair.

Methods

Thirty-two healthy men with primary unilateral inguinal hernias (Nyhus classification), who presented at São José Hospital of Criciúma, Brazil, underwent the Lichtenstein procedure. In total, 16 polypropylene HWM (105 g/m2) and 16 partially absorbable LWM (28 g/m2) were implanted into randomly selected patients. On post-operative days 1, 30, 60 and 90, the area of the mesh was evaluated by digital radiography.

Results

The study randomized 32 patients and analyzed 30 patients—15 for each type of mesh. At baseline, there were no differences between groups. There were significant differences between the two meshes when comparing the total area initially and on postoperative day 90 (P = 0.001). The HWM had significantly less area initial area, as compared with 90 days postoperatively (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

Shrinkage was significantly higher for HWM, although the difference was not large.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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. Primatesta P, Goldacre MJ (1996) Inguinal hernia repair: incidence of elective and emergency surgery, readmission and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 25:835–839

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L et al (2001) Quality assessment of 26, 304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark; a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 358:1124–1128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lammers BJ, Meyer HJ, Huber HG et al (2001) Developments in inguinal hernia based on newly introduced intervention techniques in the North Rhine district. Chirurg 72:448–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Collaboration EH (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  Google Scholar 

  5. Grant A (2002) EU Hernia Trialist collaboration. Open mesh versus non-mesh repair of groin hernia: meta-analysis of randomized trials based on individual patient data. Hernia 6:130–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weyhe D, Belyaev O, Muller C, Meurer et al (2007) Improving outcomes in hernia repair by the use of light meshes-a comparison of different implant constructions based on a critical appraisal of the literature. World J Surg 31:234–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Hermanns B et al (2000) Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans. Chirurg 71:43–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Akolekar D, Kumar S, Khan LR et al (2008) Comparison of recurrence with lightweight composite polypropylene mesh and heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an audit of 1, 232 repairs. Hernia 12:39–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Awad ZT, Puri V, LeBlanc K et al (2005) Mechanisms of ventral hernia recurrence after mesh repair and a new proposed classification. J Am Coll Surg 201:132–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nyhus LM, Pollack R, Bruceck CT (1988) The preperitoneal approach and prosthetic buttress repair for recurrent hernia. Ann Surg 208:733–737

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schug-Pass C, Tamme C, Sommerer F et al (2008) A lightweight, partially absorbable mesh (Ultrapro) for endoscopic hernia repair: experimental biocompatibility results obtained with a porcine model. Surg Endosc 22:1100–1106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285:1987–1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulz KF, Douglas G, Altman DG et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63:834–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Amid PK (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M et al (1998) Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg 164:965–969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B et al (2001) Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia 5:142–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kapiris SA, Brough WA, Royston CM et al (2001) Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernia repair. A 7-year two-center experience in 3017 patients. Surg Endosc 15:972–975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson JM, Miller KM (1984) Biomaterial, biocompatibility and the macrophage. Biomaterials 5:5–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhardwaj RS, Henze U, Klein B (1977) Monocyte-biomaterial interaction inducing phenotypic dynamics of monocytes: a possible role of monocyte subsets in biocompatibility. J Mater Sci Mater Med 8:737–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Weyhe Dirk, Schmitz Inge, Belyaev Orlin et al (2006) Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less. Biol Response 8:1586–1591

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tamme C, Garde N, Klingler A et al (2005) Totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty with titanium-coated lightweight polypropylene mesh: early results. Surg Endosc 19:1125–1129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Junge K, Rosch R, Klinge U et al (2006) Risk factors related to recurrence in inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective analysis. Hernia 10:309–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bringman S, Conze J, Cuccurullo D et al (2010) Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes. Hernia 14:81–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Holzheimer RG (2007) Low recurrence rate in hernia repair–results in 300 patients with open mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia. Eur J Med Res 12:1–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Junge K, Rosch R, Krones CJ et al (2005) Influence of polyglecaprone 25 (Monocryl) supplementation on the biocompatibility of a polypropylene mesh for hernia repair. Hernia 9:212–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No potential or real conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. I. Rosa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silvestre, A.C., de Mathia, G.B., Fagundes, D.J. et al. Shrinkage evaluation of heavyweight and lightweight polypropylene meshes in inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia 15, 629–634 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0853-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0853-6

Keywords

Navigation