Is mesh pore size in polypropylene meshes associated with the outcome in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: a registry-based analysis of 22,141 patients

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.

Definition of Mesh Weight and Pore Size in Groin Hernia Repair: A Systematic Scoping Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Introduction: Groin hernia literature often uses the terms light- and heavyweight and small or large pores to describe meshes. There is no universal definition of these terms, and the aim of this scoping review was to assess how mesh weight and pore sizes are defined in the groin hernia literature. Methods: In this systematic scoping review, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included randomised controlled trials with adults undergoing groin hernia repair with the Lichtenstein or laparoscopic techniques using a flat permanent polypropylene or polyester mesh. Studies had to use the terms lightweight, mediumweight, or heavyweight to be included, and the outcome was to report how researchers defined these terms as well as pore sizes. Results: We included 48 studies with unique populations. The weight of lightweight meshes ranged from 28 to 60 g/m2 with a median of 39 g/m2, and the pore size ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 mm with a median of 1.6 mm. The weight of heavyweight meshes ranged from 72 to 116 g/m2 with a median of 88 g/m2, and the pore size ranged from 0.08 to 1.8 mm with a median of 1.0 mm. Only one mediumweight mesh was used weighing 55 g/m2 with a pore size of 0.75 mm. Conclusion: There seems to be a consensus that meshes weighing less than 60 g/m2 are defined as lightweight and meshes weighing more than 70 g/m2 are defined as heavyweight. The weight terms were used independently of pore sizes, which slightly overlapped between lightweight and heavyweight meshes.

Latest Trends on the Attenuation of Systemic Foreign Body Response and Infectious Complications of Synthetic Hernia Meshes

Throughout the past few years, hernia incidence has remained at a high level worldwide, with more than 20 million people requiring hernia surgery each year. Synthetic hernia meshes play an important role, providing a microenvironment that attracts and harbors host cells and acting as a permanent roadmap for intact abdominal wall reconstruction. Nevertheless, it is still inevitable to cause not-so-trivial complications, especially chronic pain and adhesion. In long-term studies, it was found that the complications are mainly caused by excessive fibrosis from the foreign body reaction (FBR) and infection resulting from bacterial colonization. For a thorough understanding of their complex mechanism and providing a richer background for mesh development, herein, we discuss different clinical mesh products and explore the interactions between their structure and complications. We further explored progress in reducing mesh complications to provide varied strategies that are informative and instructive for mesh modification in different research directions. We hope that this work will spur hernia mesh designers to step up their efforts to develop more practical and accessible meshes by improving the physical structure and chemical properties of meshes to combat the increasing risk of adhesions, infections, and inflammatory reactions. We conclude that further work is needed to solve this pressing problem, especially in the analysis and functionalization of mesh materials, provided of course that the initial performance of the mesh is guaranteed.

[Association of tension-free inguinal hernia repair and pathospermia in fertile men]

OBJECTIVE

To reveal the association of tension-free inguinal hernia repair and pathospermia in fertile men.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We have retrospectively analyzed medical records of 512 men who appealed to andrologist with complaints of the absence of pregnancy in wife in 2018. We evaluated duration and features of infertility, presence/absence of previous inguinal hernia repair, spermogram data (according to WHO criteria, 2010) in all patients.

RESULTS

Duration of infertility in men after inguinal hernia repair persists for 4.2±2.1 years. Right-sided hernia repair was performed in 36 (48.6%) patients, left-side - 23 (31%), bilateral repair - 15 (20.2%) patients. Men with impaired sperm motility prevailed among patients after right-sided inguinal hernia repair (17 (47.2%) people). Left-sided hernia repair was followed by asthenozoospermia in 8 (34.7%) cases, bilateral hernia repair - in 3 (20%) cases. The most severe abnormalities in semen analysis (azoospemia) develop after bilateral hernia repair.

CONCLUSION

Inguinal tension-free hernia repair is a risk factor for male infertility in 14.4% of cases. It is very important to examine a man in case of infertile marriage. Previous surgical interventions including inguinal hernia repair should be considered.

Lightweight mesh is recommended in open inguinal (Lichtenstein) hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of lightweight mesh for inguinal hernia repair has been suggested to be preferable compared with heavyweight mesh. Nevertheless, surgeons do not use lightweight mesh routinely, possibly owing to the higher price and lack of confidence in evaluation of previous evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update the available randomized controlled trials and provide a recommendation on the use of lightweight mesh or heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in May 2019 in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight (≤50 g/m²) and heavyweight (>70 g/m²) mesh in patients undergoing open (Lichtenstein) surgery for uncomplicated inguinal hernias. Outcomes were recurrences (overall, after direct or indirect repair), chronic pain (analyzing any and severe pain), and the feeling of a foreign body. The level of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by random effect meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-one randomized controlled trials involving 4,576 patients (lightweight mesh 2,257 vs heavyweight mesh 2,319) were included. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 60 months. No difference between lightweight mesh and heavyweight mesh was determined for recurrence rates (lightweight mesh 42 of 2,068 and heavyweight mesh 34 of 2,132; risk ratios 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.96) or severe pain (lightweight mesh 14 of 1,517 and heavyweight mesh 26 of 1,591; risk ratios 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.41). A significant reduction was seen for any pain after lightweight mesh (234 of 1,603) compared with heavyweight mesh (322 of 1,683; risk ratios 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96) and for the feeling of a foreign body (lightweight mesh 130 of 1,053 and heavyweight mesh 209 of 1,035; risk ratios 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.80).

CONCLUSION

Lightweight mesh should be used in open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair.

Lightweight Versus Heavyweight Mesh in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background: There is no consensus on whether lightweight mesh (LWM) is better than heavyweight mesh (HWM) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). This study aims to update the previous reviews and to analyze present randomized controlled studies comparing LWM versus HWM in LIHR systematically. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared LWM with HWM in adults with LIHR. All eligible data of outcomes were quantitatively analyzed using Revman 5.3 software or qualitatively described. The outcomes included chronic pain, moderate-severe chronic pain, recurrence, foreign body sensation, influence on sexual life and male fertility (pain with ejaculation, testicular pain, etc.). Results: We included 12 RCTs that analyzed 3092 hernias. The difference between LWM and HWM groups at any follow-up time was not significant in chronic pain and foreign body sensation. Compared with HWM group, patients in LWM group had a similar risk of postoperative moderate-severe chronic pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up, a slightly increased risk of developing moderate-severe chronic pain at >12 months follow-up (risk ratio [RR] = 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-9.75, P = .04), and a higher risk of recurrence rate (RR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.17-4.44, P = .02). At long-term follow-up, the influences of LWM and HWM on sexual life and male fertility were comparable. Conclusion: LWMs do not show advantages in chronic pain, foreign body sensation as well as the influence on sexual life and male fertility, and may increase hernia recurrence rates for LIHR. In addition, a higher incremental cost and lower incremental effect of LWMs make conventional HWMs preferred choice for LIHR.