• Eur. J. Med. Res. · Jun 2005

    Comparative Study Clinical Trial

    Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia.

    • S Schmidbauer, R Ladurner, K K Hallfeldt, and Thomas Mussack.
    • Department of Surgery Innenstadt, Klinikum der Universität München, Germany.
    • Eur. J. Med. Res. 2005 Jun 22;10(6):247-53.

    BackgroundThe introduction of retromuscular, preperitoneal sublay technique using polypropylene (PP) meshes had significantly decreased the recurrence rates after open incisional hernia repair. Nevertheless, recent data of single institutions reported about non-acceptable high hernia recurrences. The objective of this study was to determine early complications and the long-term course of patients who underwent open sublay hernia repair using heavy-weight versus low-weight PP meshes.MethodsBetween January 1996 and December 1997, all consecutive patients received large pore-sized, monofilament heavy-weight PP meshes (Prolene); from January 1998 to December 2001, only large pore-sized, low-weight PP meshes (Vypro) composed of multifilaments were used. The clinical course of all patients was registered during the hospital stay as well as 3 months and at least 12 months after surgery.ResultsSixty-nine patients (mean age 56 +/- 13 years) underwent sublay hernia repair with heavy-weight PP meshes, 106 patients (mean age 60 +/- 14 years) with low-weight PP meshes. No significant differences were determined concerning age, gender, BMI, ASA score, hernia size 25 - 99 cm(2) and number of primary midline incisions. In contrast, mean hernia size and number of hernia size > or = 100 cm(2) were significantly higher, whereas number of hernia size < 25 cm(2), ratio of recurrent hernia and length of hospital stay were lower in the low-weight PP mesh group. Minor complications (17%) appeared more frequently in the heavy-weight than in the low-weight PP mesh group (13%). One patient each with major bleeding required re-operation in both groups. One patient with lethal pulmonary embolism in the heavy-weight PP mesh group and one patient with unrecognised enterotomy and re-operation in the low-weight PP mesh group were registered. In the long-term run (mean follow-up 92 +/- 20 months), patients of the heavy-weight PP mesh group complained significantly more frequently about chronic pain and "stiff abdomen" than those of the low-weight PP mesh group (46 +/- 14 months). Two hernia recurrences occurred in each study group. Two of them were found after midline hernia repair at the edge of the mesh, the remainder were detected after lateral hernia repair.ConclusionLarge pore-sized low-weight PP meshes composed of multifilaments are clearly to be favoured over large pore-sized, monofilament heavy-weight PP meshes because of better abdominal wall compliance and less chronic pain. However, both types of meshes are convincing due to high tensile strength and low recurrence rates in the long-term run.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…