DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20194407

A comparative study of Lichtenstein tension free hernioplasty with prolene hernia system hernioplasty for ingunial hernia

Shahaji Chavan, Harshad Gawade, Bhushan Shah, Akhil Kandarappa, Sunil Vishwanath Panchbha

Abstract


Background: Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty (LTH) has become the gold standard for hernia repair. It is easy to learn and perform with minimal complications and low recurrence rate. But it deals with only superior half of the myopectineal orifice. Prolene hernia system (PHS) hernioplasty is safe, causes minimal pain and has minimal recurrence rate but is still not popular due to high cost. The aim of the study is to compare the Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty with hernioplasty using prolene hernia system.

Methods: A total of 60 patients with inguinal hernia were equally grouped into cases (PHS) and controls (LTH). Outcome measures were compared with regards to postoperative pain, hospital stay and complications.

Results: There was no significant difference in mean days of post-operative hospital stay among cases and controls. On post-operative days 1 and 3, most of the patients experienced moderate pain and by 8th post-operative day most of the patients had no pain. The pain intensity decreased with increase in post-operative days. Seroma formation was seen among 2 (6.67%) cases (PHS) group in comparison to 3 (10.0%) controls (Lichtenstein) group. Post-operative wound infection was seen among 1 (3.33%) cases (PHS) group and controls (Lichtenstein) group each. Recurrence was seen neither among patients treated with either technique.

Conclusions: Prolene Hernia System mesh repair could be a suitable alternative to time honored Lichtenstein hernia repair with added advantage of strengthening the whole of myopectineal orifice, and virtually eliminating any risk of recurrence. 


Keywords


Inguinal hernia, Prolene hernia system, Lichtenstein hernia repair, Outcome

Full Text:

PDF

References


Kulacoglu H. Current options in inguinal hernia repair in adult patients. Hippokratia. 2011;15(3):223.

Van Hee R. History of Inguinal Hernia Repair. Jurnalul de Chirurgie Iasi. 2011;7(3):301-19.

Badkur M, Garg N. Comparative Study of Prolene Hernia System and Lichtenstein Method for Open Inguinal Hernia Repair. J Clini Diag Res. 2015;9(6):PC04.

Gilbert AI, Graham MF, Voigt WJ. A bilayer patch device for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 1999;3(3):161-6.

Mottin CC, Ramos RJ, Ramos MJ. Using the Prolene Hernia System (PHS) for inguinal hernia repair. Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões. 2011;38(1):24-7.

Karaca AS, Ersoy OF, Ozkan N, Yerdel MA. Comparison of Inguinal Hernia Repairs Performed with Lichtenstein, Rutkow–Robbins, and Gilbert Double Layer Graft Methods. Indian J Surg. 2015;77(1):28-33.

Sanjay P, Watt DG, Ogston SA, Alijani A, Windsor JA. Meta-analysis of Prolene Hernia System mesh versus Lichtenstein mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Surgeon. 2012;10(5):283-9.

Matyja A, Kibil W, Pach R, Solecki R, Kulig J, Kamtoh G, et al. Original paper: Assessment of inguinal hernia treatment results in patients operated on with mesh using Lichtenstein, PHS and Robbins- Rutkow techniques. Wideochirurgia i Inne Techniki Malo Inwazyjne. 2010;5(1):27.

Mayagoitia JC. Inguinal hernioplasty with the prolene hernia system. Hernia. 2004;8:64-6.

Zhao G, Gao P, Ma B. Open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2009;250(1):35-42.

Yew MK, Steinberg D. Single surgeon experience with bilayer polypropelen mesh repair of inguinal hernia. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(5):343-5.