Title: Comparative Study of Skin Staples and Polypropylene Sutures for Securing the Mesh in Lichtensein Tension Free Inguinal Hernia Repair
Authors: Dr Sushil M. Damor (M.S., FMAS, FIAGES), Dr Amul Bhedi, Dr Arnab Sarkar, Dr Minesh Sindhal
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i5.31
Abstract
Background: Since time immemorial, inguinal herniorrhaphy is one of the oldest and commonest operations in the surgeon’s technical armamentarium. Since the first true herniorrhaphy was performed by Bassini as early as 1887 AD, modifications and surgical techniques have shared a common disadvantage: suture line tension. To use this already defective tissue particularly under tension is counter-productive and total reinforcement with a sheet of mesh securing the areas much beyond the boundary of Hasselbach's triangle is much more effective procedure3. With the use of modern mesh prosthetics, it is now possible to repair all adult inguinal hernias without distortion of normal anatomy and with no suture line tension.
Aims and Objectives: To compare the use of skin staples versus polypropylene sutures to fix the mesh.
Settings and design: This is a prospective study carried out in SSG Hospital from July 2002 to April 2005.
Materials and methods: This study comprised of 54 patients undergoing 60 repairs randomized into stapler group and polypropylene group.
Results: The duration of surgery and length of hospital stay in the group wit mesh fixation by staples was less as compared to mesh fixed by polypropylene sutures. Also the complication rate was less as compared to the other group.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that in a set up like ours, catering to poor and rural patients, this technique of mesh fixation is as effective as conventional fixation with polypropylene sutures with an important added advantage, which was significant, and that is reducing the operative time, being less painful and providing good fixation of mesh and the most important, early return to work.
Keywords: Hernioplasty, Polypropylene mesh, Staples, Lichtenstein.
References
1. Berliner SD. An approach to groin hernia. Surg Clin North Am 1984 ;64; 197-213
2. Peacock EE Jr., Madden JW. -Studies on the biology and treatment of recurrent inguinal hernias : Morphological changes. Ann Surg 1974 ; 179 (5): 567-71.
3. Lichtenstien IL.Shulman AG, Amid PK, Montllor MM : The tension-free herniopiasty. Am J Surg 1989;157:188-193.
4. Amid PK, Shuiman AG, Lichtenstien IL. A critical scrutiny of the open "tension-free" Herniopiasty. Am J Surg 1993; 165: 369- 371.
5. Grays Anatomy, 37th edition.
6. Baiiey and Loves's . Short Practice of Surgery; 23rd edition.
7. Sabiston. Textbook of Surgery; 15th edition.
8. Abrahamson JH. Hernias. Maingot's Abdominal Operations, 10th editi.
9. Usher FC, Fries JG, Ochsner JL, et ai. Marlex mesh: a new plastic mesh for replacing tissue defects: II. Clinical studies. Arch Surg 1959;78:138-45.
10. Lichtenstein IL: Immediate Ambulation and return to work following herniorraphy. ind Med Surg 1966 ; 35 : 754-59.
11. Lichtenstein IL, Shore LN. Simplified repair of femoral and recurrent inguinal hernias by a plug technique. Am J Surg 1974 ; 128 : 439-44.
12. Lichtenstein IL. Hernia repair without disability, ed 2. Ishiyaku Euroarnerica, Inc St Louis.Tokyo, 1986.
13. Shuiman AG, Amid PK, Lichtenstien IL. The safety of rnesh repair for primary Inguinal hernias:'results of 3019 operations from five diverse surgical sources. Am Surg 1992; 58 : 255-7.