Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Reinforcement of inguinal hernia repair with prosthetic mesh is standard practice but can cause considerable pain and stiffness around the groin and affect physical functioning. This has led to various types of mesh being engineered, with a growing interest in lighter-weight mesh. Minimally invasive approaches have also significantly reduced postoperative recovery from inguinal hernia repair. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes after laparoscopic inguinal repair using new lightweight or traditional heavyweight mesh in published randomised controlled trials.

Methods

Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists were searched for controlled trials of heavyweight versus lightweight mesh for laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernias. The primary outcomes were recurrence and chronic pain. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue pain score at 7 days postoperatively, seroma formation, and time to return to work. Risk differences were calculated for categorical outcomes and standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes.

Results

Eight trials were included in the analysis of 1,667 hernias in 1,592 patients. Mean study follow-up was between 2 and 60 months. There was no effect on recurrence [pooled analysis risk difference 0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01), p = 0.86] or chronic pain [pooled analysis risk difference −0.02 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.00); p = 0.1]. Lightweight and heavyweight mesh repair had similar outcomes with regard to postoperative pain, seroma development, and time to return to work.

Conclusion

Both mesh options appear to result in similar long- and short-term postoperative outcomes. Further long-term analysis may guide surgeon selection of mesh weight for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG (1986) Ambulatory outpatient hernia surgery. Including a new concept, introducing tension-free repair. Int Surg 71:1–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J, Smedberg S, Granlund H, Heikkinen TJ (2006) Three-year results of a randomized clinical trial of lightweight or standard polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 93:1056–1059

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hakeem A, Shanmugam V (2011) Inguinodynia following Lichtenstein tension-free hernia repair: a review. World J Gastroenterol 17:1791–1796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Holt PJ, Praseedom RK (2010) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 97:4–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B, Memon MI, Abrams KR (2003) Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 90:1479–1492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Aasvang EK, Gmaehle E, Hansen JB, Gmaehle B, Forman JL, Schwarz J, Bittner R, Kehlet H (2010) Predictive risk factors for persistent post-herniotomy pain. Anesthesiology 112:957–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Cristiano JA, Gersin KS, Norton HJ, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2007) Prospective histologic evaluation of intra-abdominal prosthetics 4 months after implantation in a rabbit model. Surg Endosc 21:1170–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hollinsky C, Sandberg S, Koch T, Seidler S (2008) Biomechanical properties of lightweight versus heavyweight meshes for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and their impact on recurrence rates. Surg Endosc 22:2679–2685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Akolekar D, Kumar S, Khan LR, de Beaux AC, Nixon SJ (2008) Comparison of recurrence with lightweight composite polypropylene mesh and heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an audit of 1,232 repairs. Hernia 12:39–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnorth AN, Molloy RG, Small PK, Lammers B, Horeyseck G (2005) Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 92:166–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McCormack K, Wake BL, Fraser C, Vale L, Perez J, Grant A (2005) Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Hernia 9:109–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wake BL, McCormack K, Fraser C, Vale L, Perez J, Grant AM (2005) Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) vs. totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004703

  13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Agarwal BB, Agarwal KA, Mahajan KC (2009) Prospective double-blind randomized controlled study comparing heavy- and lightweight polypropylene mesh in totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: early results. Surg Endosc 23:242–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bittner R, Leibl BJ, Kraft B, Schwarz J (2011) One-year results of a prospective, randomised clinical trial comparing four meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TAPP). Hernia 15:503–510

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chowbey PK, Garg N, Sharma A, Khullar R, Soni V, Baijal M, Mittal T (2010) Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal groin hernia repair. Surg Endosc 24:3073–3079

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chui LB, Ng WT, Sze YS, Yuen KS, Wong YT, Kong CK (2010) Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in chronic pain incidence after TEP repair of bilateral inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 24:2735–2738

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Peeters E, Spiessens C, Oyen R, De Wever L, Vanderschueren D, Penninckx F, Miserez M (2010) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in men with lightweight meshes may significantly impair sperm motility: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 252:240–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Langenbach MR, Schmidt J, Ubrig B, Zirngibl H (2008) Sixty-month follow-up after endoscopic inguinal hernia repair with three types of mesh: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 22:1790–1797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J, Heikkinen T (2005) Early results of a randomized multicenter trial comparing prolene and vypro II mesh in bilateral endoscopic extraperitoneal hernioplasty (TEP). Surg Endosc 19:536–540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Heikkinen T, Wollert S, Osterberg J, Smedberg S, Bringman S (2006) Early results of a randomised trial comparing prolene and vypro II-mesh in endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP) of recurrent unilateral hernias. Hernia 10:34–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Khan LR, Liong S, de Beaux AC, Kumar S, Nixon SJ (2010) Lightweight mesh improves functional outcome in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 14:39–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yunis J (2009) Critical issues in groin hernia management. Surg Technol Int 18:119–124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lauscher JC, Yafaei K, Buhr HJ, Ritz JP (2008) Total extraperitoneal hernioplasty: does the long-term clinical course depend on the type of mesh? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 18:803–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lo Menzo E, Spector SA, Iglesias A, Martinez JM, Huaco J, DeGennaro V, Madan AK (2009) Management of recurrent inguinal hernias after total extraperitoneal (TEP) herniorrhaphies. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:475–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Phillips EH, Rosenthal R, Fallas M, Carroll B, Arregui M, Corbitt J, Fitzgibbons R, Seid A, Schultz L, Toy F et al (1995) Reasons for early recurrence following laparoscopic hernioplasty. Surg Endosc 9:140–144. Discussion 144–145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schrenk P, Woisetschlager R, Rieger R, Wayand W (1996) Prospective randomized trial comparing postoperative pain and return to physical activity after transabdominal preperitoneal, total preperitoneal or shouldice technique for inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 83:1563–1566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gong K, Zhang N, Lu Y, Zhu B, Zhang Z, Du D, Zhao X, Jiang H (2011) Comparison of the open tension-free mesh-plug, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 25:234–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thanked Drs. Pradeep Chowbey, Brij Agarwal, Marc Miserez, and Timo Heikkinen for providing further data for inclusion in this meta-analysis.

Disclosures

Drs. Currie, Andrew, Tonsi, Hurley, and Taribagil have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Croydon University Hospital, 530 London Road, Croydon, CR7 7YE, UK

    Andrew Currie, Helen Andrew, Alfredo Tonsi, Paul R. Hurley & Sanjay Taribagil

Authors
  1. Andrew Currie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Andrew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alfredo Tonsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul R. Hurley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sanjay Taribagil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Currie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Currie, A., Andrew, H., Tonsi, A. et al. Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26, 2126–2133 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2179-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2179-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation