Criteria for choosing a mesh implant in laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Patch hernioplasty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61751/bmbr/3.2024.08Keywords:
inguinal hernia, three-dimensional materials, postoperative discomfort, complications, effectiveness, comparative reviewAbstract
Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Patch hernioplasty is an important method of treating inguinal
hernias, but the lack of data on the comparative effectiveness of anatomical 3D mesh and traditional flat mesh makes
it difficult to choose the optimal implant to reduce the risk of recurrence and complications. The aim of the study
was to compare the effectiveness of anatomical 3D mesh and traditional flat mesh in laparoscopic hernioplasty with
Transabdominal Preperitoneal Patch, as well as to determine the key criteria for implant selection. The objectives of
the study were to analyse the recurrence rate, duration of surgery, postoperative pain, complication rate and patient
satisfaction in the two groups. The study included 187 patients who were divided into two groups: 92 patients received
traditional flat meshes and 95 patients received 3D anatomical meshes. Data were collected over 18 months and analysed
using statistical methods. The use of anatomical 3D meshes reduced the time of surgery. The average level of postoperative
pain according to the Visual Analogue Scale in the group with anatomical meshes was 30% lower. The complication rate
in the anatomical mesh group was 5%, while in the flat mesh group it was 12%. Patient satisfaction in the group with
anatomical 3D meshes was significantly higher. The results of the study confirm the advantage of anatomical 3D mesh
in laparoscopic hernioplasty with Transabdominal Preperitoneal Patch, which reduces the time of surgery, reduces the
incidence of recurrence, postoperative pain and complications, and increases patient satisfaction
Received: 24.05.2024 | Revised: 31.07.2024 | Accepted: 30.08.2024
References
Hrubnik V, Buhridze Z, Parfentiev R, Vorotyntseva K, Parfentieva N. Surgical treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia: The choice of method. Odessa Med J. 2023;1-2:39–43. DOI: 10.54229/2226-2008-2022-1-2-7
Bilay A. Efficacy of modified total extraperitoneoscopic plastics in the treatment of inguinal hernia [dissertation]. Zaporizhzhia: Zaporizhzhia State Medical University; 2017. 161 p.
Babiy I. Comparative evaluation of alloplastic methods of surgical treatment of inguinal hernia [dissertation]. Vinnytsia: Pirogov Vinnytsia National Medical University; 2019. 250 p.
Saiding Q, Chen Y, Wang J, Pereira CL, Sarmento B, Cui W, Chen X. Abdominal wall hernia repair: From prosthetic meshes to smart materials. Mater Today Bio. 2023;21:100691. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100691
Meng M, Wang J, Huang H, Liu X, Zhang J, Li Z. 3D printing metal implants in orthopedic surgery: Methods, applications and future prospects. J Orthop Translat. 2023;42:94–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2023.08.004
Wu Y, Liu J, Kang L, Tian J, Zhang X, Hu J, et al. An overview of 3D printed metal implants in orthopedic applications: Present and future perspectives. Heliyon. 2023;9(7):e17718. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17718
Thanh Xuan N, Huu Son N. Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal technique for inguinal hernia repair in adults. Cureus. 2020;12(6):e8692. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.8692
Savoliuk S, Lysenko V, Krestyanov M, Zavertylenko D. Fast track surgery in laparoscopic treatment of inguinal hernias. Inf Chemot. 2020;3(1):65–66. DOI: 10.32902/2663-0338-2020-3.1-54
The World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jul 18]. Available from: https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/ declaration-of-helsinki/
Law of Ukraine. On Personal Data Protection [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2024 Jul 18]. Order No. 2297-VI. 2010 Jun 1. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/2297-17#Text
Seefeldt CS, Meyer JS, Knievel J, Rieger A, Geißen R, Lefering R, Heiss MM. BIOLAP: Biological versus synthetic mesh in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: Study protocol for a randomized, multicenter, self-controlled clinical trial. Trials. 2019;20(1):55. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-3122-5
FitzGerald JF, Kumar AS. Biologic versus synthetic mesh reinforcement: What are the pros and cons? Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2014;27(4):140–48. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1394155
Jangjoo A, Kalantari ME, Zandbaf T. Mesh migration following abdominal hernia repair: A case report, and literature review. Caspian J Intern Med. 2022;13(4):815–17. DOI: 10.22088/cjim.13.4.815
Matikainen M, Vironen J, Kössi J, Hulmi T, Hertsi M, Rantanen T, Paajanen H. Impact of mesh and fixation on chronic inguinal pain in lichtenstein hernia repair: 5-year outcomes from the Finn mesh study. World J Surg. 2021;45(2):459–64. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-020-05835-1
Wassenaar E, Schoenmaeckers E, Raymakers J, van der Palen J, Rakic S. Mesh-fixation method and pain and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair: A randomized trial of three fixation techniques. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1296–2. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0763-1
Saha T, Wang X, Padhye R, Houshyar S. A review of recent developments of polypropylene surgical mesh for hernia repair. OpenNano. 2022;7:100046. DOI: 10.1016/j.onano.2022.100046
Olanrewaju OA, Saleem A, Ansah Owusu F, Pavani P, Ram R, Varrassi G. Contemporary approaches to hernia repair: A narrative review in general surgery. Cureus. 2023;15(12):e51421. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51421
Elango S, Perumalsamy S, Ramachandran K, Vadodaria K. Mesh materials and hernia repair. Biomedicine. 2017;7(3):16. DOI: 10.1051/bmdcn/2017070316
Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, Fabian M, Ferzli GS, Fortelny RH, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)-part 1. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):2–29. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3170-6
Vorst AL, Kaoutzanis C, Carbonell AM, Franz MG. Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7(11):293–5. DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v7.i11.293
Wu KY, Fujioka JK, Daigle P, Tran SD. The use of functional biomaterials in aesthetic and functional restoration in orbital surgery. J Funct Biomater. 2024;15(2):33. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15020033
Li J, Ji Z, Cheng T. Lightweight versus heavyweight in inguinal hernia repair: A meta-analysis. Hernia. 2012;16(5):529–39. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-012-0928-z
Prakash P, Bansal VK, Misra MC, Babu D, Sagar R, Krishna A, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing chronic groin pain and quality of life in lightweight versus heavyweight polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Minim Access Surg. 2016;12(2):154–61. DOI: 10.4103/0972-9941.170018
Currie A, Andrew H, Tonsi A, Hurley PR, Taribagil S. Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2126–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2179-6
Melkemichel M, Bringman S, Widhe B. Lower recurrence rate with heavyweight mesh compared to lightweight mesh in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) repair of groin hernia: A nationwide population-based register study. Hernia. 2018;22(6):989–97. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-018-1809-x
Deveci CD, Öberg S, Rosenberg J. Definition of mesh weight and pore size in groin hernia repair: A systematic scoping review of randomised controlled trials. J Abdom Wall Surg. 2023;2:11179. DOI: 10.3389/jaws.2023.11179
Pedersen KF, Krpata DM, Rosen MJ, Bisgaard T. Laparoscopic treatment of chronic pain following inguinal hernia repair: A narrative review of the literature. Laparosc Surg. 2021;5:47. DOI: 10.21037/ls-20-124
Shiroud Heidari B, Dodda JM, El-Khordagui LK, Focarete ML, Maroti P, Toth L, et al. Emerging materials and technologies for advancing bioresorbable surgical meshes. Acta Biomater. 2024;184:1–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2024.06.012
Rashid T, Reshi FA, Mir IS, Bhat SN, Nazir I, Viqar S, et al. A comparative study of three-dimensional mesh (3D mesh) and polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs in adults. Int Surg J. 2018;5(1):174–80. DOI: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20175890
Baylón K, Rodríguez-Camarillo P, Elías-Zúñiga A, Díaz-Elizondo JA, Gilkerson R, Lozano K. Past, present and future of surgical meshes: A review. Membranes. 2017;7(3):47. DOI: 10.3390/membranes7030047
Robbins A, Maden C, Volpin A, Konan S. A systematic review of three dimensional (3-D) printing applications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaed Belgica. 2020;86(Suppl 2):165–77.
Schulze M, Juergensen L, Rischen R, Toennemann M, Reischle G, Puetzler J, et al. Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: A systematic review. 3D Print Med. 2024;10(1):9. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-024-00210-5
Natale G, Reginelli A, Testa D, Motta G, Fang V, Santini M, Fiorelli A. The use of 3D printing model as tool for planning endoscopic treatment of benign airway stenosis. Transl Cancer Res. 2020;9(3):2117–22. DOI: 10.21037/tcr.2020.01.22
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bulletin of Medical and Biological Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
