4.3 Article

The preperitoneal memory-ring patch for inguinal hernia: a prospective multicentric feasibility study

Journal

HERNIA
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 243-249

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-009-0475-4

Keywords

Inguinal hernia; Preperitoneal; Polysoft (R); Memory-ring

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the feasibility, the reproducibility, the safety and the efficacy of a recently introduced preperitoneal memory-ring patch (Polysoft(A (R)), Davol Inc., C.R. Bard Inc., Crawley, UK) by a prospective multicentric observational study. We performed 235 unilateral groin hernia repairs in 200 consecutive patients during a 12-month period. Patients were operated by three different surgeons in two different centres. Pre- and intraoperative data, as well as postoperative complications, were prospectively recorded. Two hundred patients, with a mean age of 55.4 years, were operated for primary or recurrent unilateral groin hernias. The mean operation time for unilateral hernia repair was 22 min (range 14-37 min). Seventy-one patients (35.5%) were operated in an ambulatory setting. Considering pain scores, we observed a preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 1.4 (range 0-3.7). After 24 h, 3 weeks and 6 months, VAS was 4.2 (0.5-6.9), 1.7 (0-2.0) and 0.1 (0-1.5), respectively. The follow-up was more than 18 months in all patients (range 19-31 months). In total, three patients were diagnosed with a recurrence and were reoperated by an anterior Lichtenstein repair with large-pore mesh. This transinguinal minimally invasive preperitoneal mesh repair is reproducible, easy to perform and safe with acceptable mid-term results. These elements, together with a minimal superficial dissection in the inguinal canal, preperitoneal mesh placement and the absence of fixation, are possible elements to reduce acute and chronic postoperative pain compared to other open and also laparoscopic techniques that have to be proven in larger (randomised) trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available