Title: Clinical study to compare the short term outcomes in six months follow up period with Respect to open mesh and non mesh repair based on randomization
Authors: Dr Vasanth Dunna, Dr Uday Kiran Mokati, Dr Kamala Priya Tata, Dr Narendra Babu Bathina, Dr Mohammad Nowsheen, Dr D V Lavanya Ambati, Dr Lakshmi Sri Durga Mallela, Sree Siddi Tilak Pasupuleti
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v7i8.28
Abstract
Background: Hernia are among the oldest surgical challenges and are currently the most commonly performed general surgical operations.
Many of the newer techniques, have demonstrated that when performed well, the recurrence rate should be relatively low.
Objective: The objective is to know the risk factors, clinical presentations, and various methods of surgical treatment, and also the comparative study between open mesh and non mesh repair of inguinal hernia in six month duration of follow up.
Method: A randomized comparative study of Open Mesh and Non-mesh repair was done for the 135 patients presenting with inguinal hernia, admitted in our hospital were studied from January 2017 to June 2018.
Results: Out of 135 patients who underwent inguinal hernia surgery, majority were men in their fourth and fifth decade. Most of the patients opted for Non-mesh type of repair.
Randomized prospective study was done to compare Non-mesh and mesh repair of inguinal hernia. Patients were followed for six months, except for 3recurrences in Non-mesh group, there were no other significant difference noted.
Conclusion: After Randomized study, it wasn’t possible to identify clearly the benefits of mesh repair in respect to short term outcomes.
Though it is advised, particularly in training institution, to use mesh because Recurrence rate is low. The present study results indicate that this is not the case of early recurrence, which represent technical failure. And also, studies says that long term follow-up is required for full determination of recurrence rate.
Keywords: Inguinal Hernia, Direct, Indirect. Mesh Repair, Non Mesh Repair.
References
- Papavramidou NS, Christopoulou-Aletras H. Treatment of ‘‘hernia’’ in the writings of Celsus (First Century AD). World J Surg. 2005; 29: 1343–1347.
- Killeen KL, Girard S, DeMeo JH, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE. Using CT to diagnose traumatic lumbar hernia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174: 1413–1415.
- Yu CY, Lin CC, Yu JC, Liu CH, Shyu RY, Chen CY. Strangulated transmeso-sigmoid hernia: CT diagnosis. Abdom Imaging.2004; 29: 158–160.
- Kang SK, Burnett CA, Freund E, Sestito J. Hernia: is it a work-related condition? Am J Ind Med. 1999; 36(6): 638–644.
- Sorenson LT, Jorgenson LN, Gottrup F. Biochemical aspects of abdominal wall hernia formation and recurrence. In: Nyhus and Condon’s hernia, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Greenburg AG. (eds), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia: 2002: 9–16. [Google Scholar]
- Anthony T, Bergen PC, Kim LT, Henderson M, Fahey T, Rege RV, et alFactors affecting recurrence following incisional herniorrhaphy. World J Surg. 2000; 24: 95–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Malik A M, Khan A, Jawaid A, Laghari A A, Talpur K A H. A Comparative analysis between Non Mesh (Bassini’s) and Mesh (Lichtenstein) Repair of Primary Inguinal Hernia. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009;21(1)
- Read RC. The centenary of Bassini's contribution to inguinal herniorrhaphy. Am J Surg. 1987;153:324-326
- Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg. 1998; 133: 378–382
- Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. SurgInnov. 2005; 12: 63–6911. Robinson TN CJ, Schoen J, Walsh MD. Surgical Endoscopy.2005; 19: 1556–1560.
- Klinge U, Prescher A, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V. Development and pathophysiology of abdominal wall defects. Chirurg. 1997; 68(4):293–303.
- Todd Vassalli J. Development of electrospun synthetic bioabsorbable fibers for a novel bionanocomposite hernia repair material. (Master of Degree thesis) Faculty of the Graduate School, University of Missouri , 2008.
- Franklin ME, Gonzalez JJ, Glass JL. Use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic device for laparoscopic repair of hernias in contaminated fields: 2-year follow-up. 2004;8:186–189.
- Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, Gazzotti F, D’Alessandro L, Pinna AD. Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s repair with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis Inguinal Hernia Matrix. Am J Surg. 2009;198:303–312.