Title: A Comparative Study of Prolene & Ultra Pro (Composite) Mesh in Inguinal Hernia Surgery
Authors: Liyaquat Hussian, Navneet Parashar, Shivraj Meena
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i3.86
Abstract
Purpose- The aim of the study was Comparison the use of Polypropylene mesh (Prolene mesh) and Light weight mesh (ultra pro mesh).
Methods- A total of 50 patients were studied observed and followed up at 15 days, 1 month, 3, months and 6 months. 25 patients were offered light weight mesh hernioplasty as the treatment of their condition and in rest 25 patients Lichtenstein hernioplasty with heavy weight mesh (prolene mesh) done.
Results: 56% of hernia occurs is 41-60 years of age and least in age of 20-30 years which is less than 8%.76% of hernia patient presented with groin swelling while 24% patient presented with groin swelling with pain. 48% of patients had symptoms of hernia for more than 6 months to one year duration. Overall post operative complications were slightly high in heavy weight mesh hernioplasty than light weight mesh hernioplasty.
Conclusion: Lichtenstein hernioplasty using light weight mesh was better than heavy weight mesh hernioplasty in respect to immediate and late post operative complication, especially chronic groin pain.
Keywords- prolene, hernia, hernioplasty, polypropylene.
References
1. Simons MP, de Lange D, Beets GL, van Geldere D, Heij HA, P.M.N.Y.H Go: Richtlijn Liesbreuk van de Nederlandse Verenigning voor Heelkunde. http://www.ntvg.nl/publicatie/richtlijn-liesbreuk-van-de-nederlandse-/volledig.
2. Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL et al: European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 2009, 13:343–403.
3. Usher FC. Further observations on the use of Marlex mesh: A new technique for the repair of ingiuinal hernias. Am Surg 1959;25:792-5.
4. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK, Montllor MM. The tension-free hernioplasty. Am J Surg 1989;157:188-93.
5. Shah BC, Goede MR, Bayer R, Buettner SL, Putney SJ, McBride CL, et al. Does type of mesh used have an impact on outcomes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia? Am J Surg 2009;198:759-64.
6. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, Anurov M, Öttinger A, Schumpelick V. Influence of polyglactin-coating on functional and morphologic parameters of polypropylene-mesh modifications for abdominal wall repair. Biomaterials 1999;20:613-23.
7. Earle DB, Mark LA. Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: How do I choose? Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:179-201.
8. Aasvang EK, Gmaehle E, Hansen JB, Gmaehle B, Forman JL, Schwarz J et al. Predictive risk factors for persistent post-herniotomy pain. Anesthesiology 2010; 112:957–969.
9. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Gersin KS, Norton HJ, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics 4 months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 2007; 21:1170–1174.
10. Hollinsky C, Sandberg S, Koch T, Seidler S. Biomechanical properties of lightweight versus heavyweight meshes for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and their impact on recurrence rates. SurgEndosc 2008; 22:2679–2685.
11. Usher F. Hernia repair with Marlex mesh. Arch. Surg. 84,325-328 (1962).
12. Abramson JH, Gofin J, Hopp C, Makler A, Epstein LM. The epidemiology of inguinal hernia. A survey in western Jerusalem. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978 Mar;32(1):59-67.
13. Nordback I. Side incidence of inguinal hernias. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1984;73 (2):87-90.
14. Balamaddaiah G, Reddy SVRM. Prevalence and risk factors of inguinal hernia: a study in a semi-urban area in Rayalaseema, Andhra Pradesh,India. Int Surg J 2016;3:1310-3.
15. Falagas ME, Kasiakou SK. Mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Jan;11(1):3-8.