Advertisement

Technique: Plug and Patch

  • Carl Doerhoff
Chapter

Abstract

The 3D plug and patches available to the surgeon allow the surgeon to tailor the plug and patch to best fit the needs for initial inguinal hernia repair. Patients with a defect of 3 cm or smaller are excellent candidates for plug-and-patch repair. Poor candidates for plug and patch are patients with giant hernias, large recurrent hernias, multiply recurrent hernias, and obese patients where subcutaneous fat is greater than 5–6 cm. A surgeon should understand the plug-and-patch repair in its entirety. Components of the procedure are a combination of mesh and technique. Inguinodynia seemingly must come from one of four sources: Dissection, the plug, overlay patch, or fixation. It is a surgeon’s responsibility/obligation to properly identify and not injure nerves. However, if a nerve interferes with flat placement of the overlay, the nerve should be transected and ligated. Whatever plug material is used, its preperitoneal deployment should be larger than the defect it traverses. Cone-shaped mesh plugs require suture fixation. For cone mesh plugs, migration might be a concern. A single nonabsorbable loose stitch between the overlay patch and plug should prevent any risk of plug migration. Since the plug reduces the hernia immediately with implantation, the overlay need only be positioned correctly—not fixated. Surgeons have the option of using loose stitches, fibrin sealant, or nothing at all. Plug and patch has a short learning curve and a proven track record for low recurrence. As a result of modifications of plug-and-patch materials and techniques, this durable procedure has culminated in fewer and fewer complications with a decreasing incidence of inguinodynia. The plug-patch will remain a popular choice for inguinal hernia repair for years to come.

Keywords

Plug-and-patch technique for hernia Hernia plug-and-patch technique Inguinal hernia repair Inguinodynia Millikan modified mesh-plug hernioplasty 

References

  1. 1.
    Gerdy PN. Nouvelles operations pour guerir radicalement les hernies due ventre. Gaz Hop. 1836;1:10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wutzer CW. Ueber radicale Heilung beweglicher Leisten-Bruche. In: Naumann MEA, Wutzer CW, Kilian HF, editors. Organ fur die gasmmte Heilkunde. Henry and Cohen: Bonn; 1841. p. 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Macewen W. On the radical cure of oblique inguinal hernia by internal abdominal peritoneal pad, and the restoration of the valved form of the inguinal canal. Ann Surg. 1886;4:89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lichntenstein IL, Shore JM. Simplified repair of femoral and recurrent inguinal hernias by a “Plug” technique. Am J Surg. 1974;128:439–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shulman AG, Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. The plug repair of 1402 recurrent inguinal hernias. Arch Surg. 1990;125:265–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilbert AI. An anatomic and functional classification for the diagnosis and treatment of inguinal hernia. Am J Surg. 1989;157:331–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilbert AI. Overnight hernia repair: updated considerations. South Med J. 1987;80(2):191–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilbert AI. Generations of the plug and patch repair: its development and lessons from history, mastery of surgery. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 1940–3. Chapter 177.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rutkow IM, Robbins AW. “Tension-free” inguinal herniorrhaphy: a preliminary report on the “mesh plug” technique. Surgery. 1993;114(3):3–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robbins AW, Rutkow IM. The mesh-plug hernioplasty. Surg Clin North Am. 1993;73(3):501–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rutkow IM, Robbins AW. The marlex mesh perfix plug groin hernioplasty. Eur J Surg. 1998;164:549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robbins AW, Rutkow IM. Mesh plug repair and groin hernia surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 1998;78(6):1007–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robbins AW, Rutkow IM. Open mesh plug hernioplasty: the less invasive procedure. In: Szabi Z, Lewis JE, Fantini GA, et al., editors. Surgical technology international. 5th ed. San Francisco: Universal Medical Press; 1996. p. 87–90.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rutkow IM, Robbins AW. The mesh plug technique for recurrent groin herniorrhaphy: a nine year experience of 407 repairs. Surgery. 1998;124(5):844–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goyal S, Abbasakoor F, Stephenson BM. Experience with the preperitoneal ‘plug and patch’ inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 1999;86:1284–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bringman S, Ramel S, Nyberg B, Anderberg B. Introduction of herniorrhaphy with mesh plug and patch. Eur J Surg. 2000;166:310–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Isemer FE, Dathe V, Peschka B, Heinze R, Radke A. Rutkow perfix-plug repair for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias-a prospective study. Surg Technol Int. 2004;12:129–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang CS, Huang CC, Lien HH. Prolene hernia system compared with mesh plug technique: a prospective study of short- to mid-term outcomes in primary groin hernia repair. Hernia. 2005;9:167–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Nienhuijis SW, Oort I, Keemers-Gels ME, Strobbe JA, Rosman C. Randomized clinical trial comparing the prolene hernia system, mesh plug repair and Lichtenstein method for open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2005;92:33–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dalenback J, Anderson C, Anesten B, Bjorck S, Eklund S, Magnusson O, Rimback G, Stenquist B, Wedel N. Prolene hernia system, Lichtenstein mesh and plug-and-patch for primary inguinal hernia repair: 3 year outcome of a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hernia. 2009;13:121–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cristaldi M, Pisacreta M, Elli M, Valgo GL, Danelli PG, Sampietro GM, Taschieri AM. Femoro-popliteal by-pass occlusion following mesh-plug for prevascular femoral hernia repair. Hernia. 1997;1:197–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dieter RA. Mesh plug migration into scrotum: a new complication of hernia repair. Int Surg. 1999;84:57–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chuback JA, Singh RS, Sills C, Dick LS. Small bowel obstruction resulting from mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernia repair. Surgery. 2000;127:475–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tokunaga Y, Tokuka A, Ohsumi K. Sigmoid colon diverticulosis adherent to mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernia repair. Curr Surg. 2001;58(5):493–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moorman ML, Price PD. Migrating mesh plug: complication of a well established hernia repair technique. Am J Surg. 2004;70:298–9.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jeans S, Williams G, Stephenson B. Migration after open mesh plug inguinal hernioplasty: a review of the literature. Am Surg. 2007;73:207–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murphy JW, Misra DC, Silverglide B. Sigmoid colonic fistula secondary to Perfix-plug, left inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2006;10:436–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. Long-term result and current status of the Lichtenstein open tension-free hernioplasty. Hernia. 1998;2:89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    LeBlanc KA. Complications associated with the plug and patch method of inguinal herniorrhaphy. Hernia. 2001;5:135–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kingsnorth AN, Hyland ME, Porter CA, Sudergren S. Prospective double-blind randomized study comparing Perfix plug-and-patch with Lichtenstein patch in inguinal hernia repair: one year quality of life results. Hernia. 2000;4:255–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Palot JP, Avisse C, Cailliez-Tomasi JP, Greffler D, Flament JB. The mesh plug repair of groin hernias: a three-year experience. Hernia. 1998;2:31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Millikan K, Cummings B, Doolas A. The millikan modified mesh-plug hernioplasty. Arch Surg. 2003;138:525–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goldstein HS. A university experience using mesh in inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2002;5:182–5.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goldstein HS, Rabaza JR, Gonzalez AM, Verdeja JC. Evaluation of pain and disability in plug repair with the aid of a personal digital assistant. Hernia. 2003;7:25–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanders DL, Samarakoon DH, Ganshirt SW, Porter CS, Kingsnorth AN. A two-centre blinded randomized control study comparing the Lichtenstein patch. Perfix plug and ProLoop plug in the repair of primary inguinal hernia. Hernia. 2009;13:499–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Holzheimer RG. First results of Lichtenstein hernia repair with Ultrapro-mesh as cost saving procedure–quality control combined with a modified quality of life questionnaire (SF-36) in a series of ambulatory operated patients. Eur J Med Res. 2004;9(6):323–7.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    DeBord JR, et al. Two year results: reducing chronic pain utilizing GORE Bioabsorbable Hernia Plug in inguinal herniorrhaphy. Poster presented at the 94th annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons; 2008 Oct; San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Arnaud JP, et al. 1-year preliminary results: RESOLUT study. Poster presented at the 4th join society congress of the European Hernia Society/American Hernia Society; 2009 Sept; Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Manno AM, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing polypropylene and new biomaterials in plug and patch surgery for inguinal hernia. Hernia. 2011;15:S6. Abstract retrieved from http://www.springer.com/medicine/surgery/journal/10029
  40. 40.
    Misra DC. Open pre-peritoneal prosthetic mesh repair for inguinal hernia repair: preliminary experience at 1 year. Poster presented at the 14th annual hernia repair meeting; 2011 Mar; San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryCapital Region Medical CenterJefferson CityUSA

Personalised recommendations