Showing 3 results for Mesh
Talebpour M, Yagoobi A, Zargar M,
Volume 65, Issue 5 (8-2007)
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic hernioplasty is a standard technique with increasing interest of patients and surgeons. Bilateral hernioplasty can be performed by laparoscopy as well. The aim of this study is to show laparoscopic bilateral hernioplasty is an acceptable method and use of eye-shaped mesh getting the best result.
Methods: In 54 cases with bilateral inguinal hernia, under general anesthesia laparos-copic reconstruction with eye-shaped prolene mesh performed. All cases of recurrent, big, direct, indirect and femoral hernia were entered in the study.
Results: Seven of 54 cases were female. Four cases (male) had direct hernia, four female had femoral hernia and remaining of the study group had indirect form. Direct hernia 4 case (male), femoral hernia 4 (female) and remaining were indirect hernia. Operation performed without any complications in all cases. In 12 cases sac of hernia was too much enlarged so technique of bridge at the base of sac used. In five cases diameter of defect was more than 2 centimeter. In three of them defect repaired by suture before mesh insertion. Postoperative complications were seroma at distal of mesh in 23 cases (absorbed during 3 weeks spontaneously), reaction to mesh in one case (mesh and protack removed after 3 months of operation. Conservative management was ineffective and anterior repair performed), recurrence in one case (after 2 months of operation due to displacement of mesh in big direct hernia). Post operative hospital stay was 1.3 day (mean time). Painless movement and mobilization was obvious after 48 hours.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic bilateral hernioplasty using eye-shaped prolene mesh is an acceptable method with good results especially in indirect hernia. In direct hernia, repair of defect by suturing and fixation of mesh is preferred.
Tavassoli A, Ghamari Mj, Esmaily H,
Volume 68, Issue 3 (6-2010)
Abstract
Background: The inguinal hernia is a common disorder in general surgery. Different
methods have been described for repair of these hernias. In modern methods, synthetic mesh is used to cover the wall defect and the most known method is Lichtenstein surgical repair. The laparoscopic totally extra peritoneal procedure (TEP) is a newer technique of repairing hernia. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus Lichtenstein open repair in patients with inguinal hernia.
Methods: Among 50 patients, 25 cases underwent Lichtenstein procedure and 25 patients underwent TEP technique for repairing primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Findings during the operation have been recorded and the 12-months follow-up of patients in different views was performed through a questionnaire and then the results were compared.
Results: The operation duration, the rate of complications and frequency of recurrence were similar in two groups but the hospital stay, postoperative pain, chronic groin pain and the required time to return to normal activity were significantly lower in patients who underwent the TEP method compared to the patients who underwent the Lichtenstein technique (p<0.001, p<0.001, p=0.012, p<0.001, respectively).
Conclusion: The TEP surgical technique can be recognized as a safe method with acceptable results for patients and has significant effects on improvement of patients’ quality of life after hernia repair. Suitable results of this surgical method are achieved when the surgeon goes through the learning curve.
Bibi Mona Razavi, Tayyebeh Zarei, Seyed Mohammad Sadegh Ahmadi Rashti , Mehrdad Sayadinia,
Volume 83, Issue 3 (6-2025)
Abstract
Background: The use of mesh is considered one of the most effective methods and is considered the method of choice in hernia repair. However, the debate about the choice of mesh type still persists. Therefore, in the present study, the results of using ultra-light Prolene mesh with standard Prolene mesh in hernia repair surgery were compared.
Methods: The present study is a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial that was conducted at Shahid Mohammadi Hospital in Bandar Abbas. Demographic information including age, sex, height, and weight were recorded in a checklist. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Each group used Prolene mesh in the first group and ultra-light Prolene mesh in the second group for repair. Hernia repair was performed by the surgeon using the Lebakhstein method.
Results: 119 patients were included in the study. 70 patients (57.4%) had direct hernia and 52 patients (42.6%) had indirect hernia. The mean age of the Prolene group was 43.8±7.49 and the ultra-light Prolene group was 44.32±8.91 years (P=.713). The mean BMI in the Prolene group was 29.94±3.43 and in the ultra-light Parwan group was 29.66±3.76 (P=.673). Wound infection was not observed in either group. Chronic pain was 14.5 in the Prolene group and 10.3 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.490). Administrative retention was 6.3 in the Prolene group and 8.5 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.738). The recurrence rate 3 months after surgery was 0 in the Prolene group and 1 case (1.7%) in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.487). The recurrence rate 12 months after surgery was 2 cases (3.2%) in the Prolene group and 3 cases (5.2%) in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 672). The time to complete recovery was 6.94±1.63 days in the Prolene group and 6.68±1.64 days in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 368). There was no significant difference in pain intensity at 2, 6, and 24 hours after surgery between the two study groups.
Conclusion: Both Prolene and ultralight Prolene mesh have relatively similar efficacy in inguinal hernia repair. Although the advantages of ultralight Prolene mesh, such as pain intensity, chronic pain, and faster onset of motion, were slightly different in the ultralight Prolene group, the recurrence rate was slightly higher in the ultralight Prolene group.
