RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Experimental data show that large-pored meshes reduce foreign body reaction, inflammation and scar bridging and thus improve mesh integration. However, clinical data on the effect of mesh porosity on the outcome of hernioplasty are limited. This study investigated the relation of pore size in polypropylene meshes to the outcome of Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty using data from the Herniamed registry. METHODS: This analysis of data from the Herniamed registry evaluated perioperative and 1-year follow-up outcomes in patients undergoing elective, primary, unilateral Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair using polypropylene meshes. Patients operated with a non-polypropylene mesh or a polypropylene mesh with absorbable components were excluded. Polypropylene meshes with a pore size of 1.0 × 1.0 mm or less were defined as small-pored meshes, while a pore size of more than 1.0 × 1.0 mm was considered large-pored. Unadjusted analyses and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the relation of pore size of polypropylene meshes, patient and surgical characteristics to the outcome parameters. RESULTS: Data from 22,141 patients were analyzed, of which 6853 (31%) were operated on with a small-pore polypropylene mesh and 15,288 (69%) with a large-pore polypropylene mesh. No association of mesh pore size with intraoperative, general or postoperative complications, recurrence rate or pain requiring treatment was found at 1-year follow-up. A lower risk of complication-related reoperation tended to be associated with small-pore size (p = 0.086). Furthermore, small-pore mesh repair was associated with a lower risk of pain at rest and pain on exertion at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The present study could not demonstrate an advantage of large-pore polypropylene meshes for the outcome of Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Following radical prostatectomy, the rate of inguinal hernias is fourfold higher compared to controls. Laparo-endoscopic repair after previous radical prostatectomy is considered complex. Therefore, the guidelines recommend open Lichtenstein repair. To date, there are limited data on inguinal hernia repair after prior prostatectomy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis from the Herniamed Registry, the outcomes of 255,182 primary elective unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were compared with those of 12,465 patients with previous radical prostatectomy in relation to the surgical technique. Furthermore, the outcomes of laparo-endoscopic versus open Lichtenstein repair techniques in the 12,465 patients after previous radical prostatectomy were directly compared. RESULTS: Comparison of the perioperative complication rates for primary elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair with and without previous radical prostatectomy demonstrated for the laparo-endoscopic techniques significantly higher intraoperative complications (2.1% vs 0.9%; p < 0.001), postoperative complications (3.2% vs 1.9%; p < 0.001) and complication-related reoperations (1.1% vs 0.7%; p = 0.0442) to the disadvantage of previous prostatectomy. No significant differences were identified for Lichtenstein repair. Direct comparison of the laparo-endoscopic with the open Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair after previous radical prostatectomy revealed significantly more intraoperative complications for TEP and TAPP (2.1% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), but more postoperative complications (4.8% vs 3.2%; p < 0.001) and complication-related reoperations (1.8% vs 1.1%; p = 0.003) for open Lichtenstein repair. CONCLUSION: Since there are no clear advantages for the laparo-endoscopic vs the open Lichtenstein technique in inguinal hernia repair after previous radical prostatectomy, the surgeon can opt for one or the other technique in accordance with their experience.