Cirujano General

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board

>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2004, Issue 4

Martínez–Munive A, Medina Ramírez-Llaca O, Hesiquio-Silva R, Quijano–Orvañanos F, Padilla-Longoria R, Álvarez–Castillo O
Initial experience with light partially absorbable mesh for inguinal hernioplasty
Cir Gen 2004; 26 (4)

Language: Español
References: 11
Page: 256-259
PDF: 4. Kb.

Full text


Objective: To determine whether a light mesh (LM), partially absorbable, modifies the collateral effects related to the habitual heavy polypropylene meshes (rigidity and inguinodynia) without increasing the number of recurrences.
Setting: Third level health care hospital.
Design: Prospective randomized study.
Statistical analysis: Student’s t test, chi square.
Patients and methods: Sixty-four patients with unilateral inguinal primary hernia were divided in two groups: 32 for the light, partially absorbable, mesh (LM) study and 32 for the control group with polypropylene mesh (PP), operated with the Lichtenstein technique. Follow-up was based on clinical examination and a questionnaire applied 7 days, 4 weeks, and 6 months after surgery, as well as via telephone inquiries at 1, 2, and 3 years, mainly asking about incapacity produced by pain and/or rigidity in the groin area.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found between both groups, except for a lower rigidity in the LM group at 1 and 6 months after surgery (p ‹ 0.001); the rigidity risk at the site of the PP mesh was 10 times higher than in the LM group.
Conclusion: A better tolerance at short- and mid-terms was found with the LM implant, with a decrease in the rigidity risk, without compromising the Lichtenstein technique.

Key words: Inguinal hernia, biomaterials, morbidity.


  1. Vrijland WW, van den Tol MP, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Busschbach JJ, de Lange DC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of non-mesh versus mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 293-7.

  2. Shulman AG, Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. A survey of non-expert surgeons using the open tension-free mesh patch repair for primary inguinal hernias. Int Surg 1995; 80: 35-6.

  3. Voyles CR, Hamilton BJ, Johnson WD, Kano N. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic inguinal hernia trials favors open hernia repair with preperitoneal mesh prosthesis. Am J Surg 2002; 184: 6-10.

  4. Testini M, Miniello S, Piccinni G, Di Venere B, Lissidini G, Greco L, et al. Trabucco versus Rutkow versus Lichtenstein techniques in the treatment of groin hernia. A controlled randomized clinical trial. Minerva Chir 2002; 57: 371-6.

  5. Lichtenstein IL, Shore JM. Simplified repair of femoral and recurrent inguinal hernias by a “plug” technic. Am J Surg 1974; 128: 439-44.

  6. Usher FC. Hernia repair with knitted polypropylene mesh. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1963; 117: 239-40.

  7. Junge K, Klinge U, Rosch R, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V. Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 2002; 26: 1472-80.

  8. Heise CP, Starling JR. Mesh inguinodynia: a new clinical syndrome after inguinal herniorrhaphy? J Am Coll Surg 1998; 187: 514-8.

  9. Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H. Danish Hernia Database. Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 1-7.

  10. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Conze J, Limberg W, Obolenski B, Ottinger AP, et al. Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. Eur J Surg 1998; 164: 951-60.

  11. Martinez-Munive A, Medina Ramirez-Llaca O, Hesiquio-Silva R, Quijano-Orvañanos F, Padilla-Longoria R. Comparison between polypropylene and minimized-polypropylene mesh in the incidence of postoperative stiffness and pain in inguinal hernioplasty (Initial experience). Hernia Repair 2001: New Orleans LO. Abstract P9: 142.

>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2004, Issue 4

· Journal Index 
· Links 

Copyright 2019