• Pandanaboyana Sanjay, David G Watt, Simon A Ogston, Afshin Alijani, and John A Windsor.
• HBP/Upper GI Unit, Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. sanjay.pandanaboyana@nhs.net
• Surg J R Coll Surg E. 2012 Oct 1;10(5):283-9.

BackgroundThis study was designed to systematically analyse all published randomized clinical trials comparing the Prolene Hernia System (PHS) mesh and Lichtenstein mesh for open inguinal hernia repair.MethodA literature search was performed using the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and Science Citation Index Expanded. Randomized trials comparing the Lichtenstein Mesh repair (LMR) with the Prolene Hernia System were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.1 software. The primary outcome measures were hernia recurrence and chronic pain after operation. Secondary outcome measures included surgical time, peri-operative complications, time to return to work, early and long-term postoperative complications.ResultsSix randomized clinical trials were identified as suitable, containing 1313 patients. There was no statistical difference between the two types of repair in operation time, time to return to work, incidence of chronic groin pain, hernia recurrence or long-term complications. The PHS group had a higher rate of peri-operative complications, compared to Lichtenstein mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.93, P=0.01).ConclusionThe use of PHS mesh was associated with an increased risk of peri-operative complications compared to LMR. Both mesh repair techniques have comparable short- and long-term outcomes.Copyright © 2012 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

17 keywords...

hide…