Updates in Surgery

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 77–83 | Cite as

Pain and quality of life after inguinal hernia surgery: a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing lightweight vs heavyweight mesh (Supermesh Study)

  • Stefano Bona
  • Riccardo Rosati
  • Enrico Opocher
  • Barbara Fiore
  • Marco Montorsi
  • On behalf of the SUPERMESH Study Group
Original Article

Abstract

Mesh repair has significantly reduced recurrence rate after groin hernia surgery. Recently, attention has shifted to issues such as chronic pain and discomfort, leading to development of lightweight and partially re-absorbable meshes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of lightweight mesh vs heavyweight mesh on post-operative pain, discomfort and quality of life in short and medium term after inguinal hernia surgery. Eight hundred and eight patients with primary inguinal hernia were allocated to anterior repair (Lichtenstein technique) using a lightweight mesh (Ultrapro®) or a heavyweight mesh (Prolene®). Primary outcomes were incidence of chronic pain and discomfort at 6-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (QoL), pain and complication at 1 week, 1 and 6 months. At 6 months, 25% of patients reported pain of some intensity; severe pain was reported by 1% of patients in both groups. A statistically significant difference in favour of lightweight mesh was found at multivariable analysis for pain (1 week and 6 months after surgery: p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively) and QoL at 1 month and 6 months (p = 0.05 and p = 0.02, respectively). There was no difference in complication rate and no hernia recurrences were detected. The use of lightweight mesh in anterior Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair significantly reduced the incidence of pain and favourably affected the perceived quality of life at 6 months after surgery compared to heavyweight mesh.

Keywords

Inguinal hernia surgery Lichtenstein repair Lightweight mesh 

Notes

Acknowledgements

SUPERMESH Study Group: Bechi P, Firenze; Bona S, Milano; Carlucci M, Milano; Colizza S, Roma; Danelli PG, Milano; .D’Ambra L, La Spezia; Di Sebastiano P, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG); Fiore B, Milano; Fiscon V, Cittadella (PD); Lo Bello R, Napoli; Logrieco G, Acquaviva delle Fonti (BA); Montorsi M, Milano; Morpurgo E,Camposanpiero (PD); Opocher E, Milano; Perrone G, Bergamo; Rosati R, Milano; Sansonetti G, Cinisello Balsamo (MI); Schillaci V, Catania; Sgroi G, Treviglio (BG).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

S.B. declares potential conflict of interest (he was a paid consultant for Johnson & Johnson Medical until 2013). No other author reports potential conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This study has been approved by the appropriate institutional research ethics committee and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained by all patients upon enrolment.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T, Kehlet H et al (2011) Danish Hernia Database recommendations for the management of inguinal and femoral hernia in adults. Dan Med Bull 58:C4243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amid PK (2004) Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty: its inception, evolution, and principles. Hernia 8:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L et al (2001) Quality assessment of 26,304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 358:1124–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M et al (1999) Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 165:665–673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M et al (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13:343–403CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H (2001) Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 233:1–7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weyhe D, Belyaev O, Muller C et al (2007) Improving outcomes in hernia repair by the use of light meshes—a comparison of different implant constructions based on a critical appraisal of the literature. World J Surg 31:234–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smietanski M, Bury K, Smietanska IA et al (2011) Five-year results of a randomised controlled multi-centre study comparing heavy-weight knitted versus low-weight, non-woven polypropylene implants in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 15:495–501CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li J, Ji Z, Cheng T (2012) Lightweight versus heavyweight in inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Hernia 16:529–539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sajid MS, Leaver C, Baig MK et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 99:29–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smietanski M, Smietanska IA, Modrzejewski A et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis on heavy and lightweight polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. Hernia 16:519–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uzzaman MM, Ratnasingham K, Ashraf N (2012) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 16:505–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pocock SJ, Simon R (1975) Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 31:103–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bharmal M, Thomas J 3rd (2006) Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 9:262–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Staal E, Nienhuijs SW, Keemers-Gels ME et al (2008) The impact of pain on daily activities following open mesh inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 12:153–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Melzack R (1987) The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 30:191–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bender R, Lange S (2001) Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 54:343–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harrell FEJ (2013) rms: regression modeling strategies. Rpackage version 4.0-0Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Alam F et al (2010) Partially or completely absorbable versus nonabsorbable mesh repair for inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc 20:213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miserez M, Peeters E, Aufenacker T et al (2014) Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 18:151–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhong C, Wu B, Yang Z et al (2013) A meta-analysis comparing lightweight meshes with heavyweight meshes in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Surg Innov 20:24–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gao M, Han J, Tian J et al (2010) Vypro II mesh for inguinal hernia repair: a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 251:838–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palmqvist E, Larsson K, Anell A et al (2013) Prospective study of pain, quality of life and the economic impact of open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2013(100):1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nikkolo C, Murruste M, Vaasna T et al (2012) Three-year results of randomised clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh with heavyweight mesh for inguinal hernioplasty. Hernia 16:555–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kehlet H, Roumen RM, Reinpold W et al (2013) Invited commentary: persistent pain after inguinal hernia repair: what do we know and what do we need to know? Hernia 17:293–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bringman S, Heikkinen TJ, Wollert S et al (2004) Early results of a single-blinded, randomized, controlled, Internet-based multicenter trial comparing Prolene and Vypro II mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 8:127–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J et al (2005) One year results of a randomised controlled multi-centre study comparing Prolene and Vypro II-mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Hernia 9:223–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nikkolo C, Lepner U, Murruste M et al (2010) Randomised clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh with heavyweight mesh for inguinal hernioplasty. Hernia 14:253–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smietanski M (2008) Randomized clinical trial comparing a polypropylene with a poliglecaprone and polypropylene composite mesh for inguinal hernioplasty. Br J Surg 95:1462–1468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Surgery (SIC) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UO di Chirurgia Generale e DigestivaHumanitas Research Hospital and UniversityRozzano (Milan)Italy
  2. 2.UO di Chirurgia GastroenterologicaOspedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
  3. 3.UO Chirurgia II Epato-Bilio-Pancreatica e DigestivaAzienda Ospedaliera San PaoloMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations