Retrospective comparative analysis of acellular matrix materials in laparoscopic treatment of young adults with inguinal hernia

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2021.03.019

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare effect of biomaterials and synthetic materials in laparoscopic treatment of young cases with inguinal hernia.

Methods

The clinical and follow-up data of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) mesh in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital from October 2017 to December 2018 were analyzed retrospectively based on the Chinese Hernia College Registry and Follow-up System. Relevant indicators of two groups were compared.

Results

A total of 248 cases were included in this study, including 86 in biological group and 162 in synthetic group. There were no significant differences between two groups in general information, postoperative hospital stay, recurrence rate and incidence of chronic pain (P>0.05). The number of postoperative fever in biological group was higher than that in synthetic group (P<0.05). The incidence of seroma in biological group was significantly higher than that in synthetic group during follow-up period (P<0.05). There was significant difference in VAS scores between two groups at 1 week and 1 month after operation (P<0.05). The incidence of foreign body sensation was lower in biological group (P=0.021).

Conclusion

SIS mesh could achieve better therapeutic effect in laparoscopic treatment of young cases with inguinal hernia, with lower foreign body sensation and postoperative pain, but it may cause higher incidence of seroma. Individual choice is necessary.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Youth, Biomaterial, Laparoscopes

Junsheng Chen, Xiaobiao Song, Jianhui Guo, Yilin Zhu, Yuchen Liu. Retrospective comparative analysis of acellular matrix materials in laparoscopic treatment of young adults with inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(03): 288-292.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2021.03.019

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2021/V15/I03/288

Figures/Tables 3

References 21

[1]	Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Forse RA. Clinical practice. groin hernias in adults[J]. N Engl J Med, 2015, 372(8): 756-763.
[2]	Pahwa HS, Kumar A, Agarwal P, et al. Current trends in laparoscopic groin hernia repair: A review[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2015, 3(9): 789-792.
[3]	Celebi S, Aksoy D, Cevik B, et al. An electrophysiologic evaluation of whether open and laparoscopic techniques used in pediatric inguinal hernia repairs affect the genitofemoral nerve[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2013, 48(10): 2160-2163.
[4]	Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, et al. European hernia society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients[J].Hernia, 2009, 13(4): 343-403.
[5]	Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, et al. International Endohernia Society update of guidelines on laparoscopic(TAPP) and endoscopic(TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia(International Endohernia Society)[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015, 29(2): 289-321.
[6]	Zhu Y, Liu M, Li J, et al. Closure of direct inguinal hernia defect in laparoscopic hernioplasty to prevent seroma formation: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2019, 29(1): 18-21.
[7]	Yang S, Zhang G, Jin C, et al. Transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic approach for incarcerated inguinal hernia repair: a report of 73 cases[J]. Medicine, 2016, 95(52): e5686.
[8]	Liu J, Zhu YL, Shen YM, et al. The feasibility of laparoscopic management of incarcerated obturator hernia[J]. Surg Endosc, 2017, 31(2): 656-660.
[9]	Fang Z, Ren F, Zhou J, et al. Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta-analysis[J]. ANZ J Surg, 2015, 85(12): 910-916.
[10]	Zieren J, Zieren HU, Jacobi CA, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing laparoscopic and open tension-free inguinal hernia repair with shouldice’s operation[J]. Am J Surg, 1998, 175(4): 330-333.
[11]	HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[12]	秦昌富，李炳根，申英末, 等. 中国疝病注册登记随访系统的建立和发展[J]. 外科理论与实践, 2018, 23(4): 8-11.
[13]	秦昌富，申英末，李炳根, 等. 中国疝病注册登记随访系统发展现状及数据初步分析[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2018, 17(11): 1087-1089.
[14]	Bochicchio GV, Jain A, Mcgonigal K, et al. Biologic vs synthetic inguinal hernia repair: 1-year results of a randomized double-blinded trial[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2014, 218(4): 751-757.
[15]	Köckerling F, Alam NN, Antoniou SA, et al. What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(2): 249-269.
[16]	Öberg S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J. Absorbable meshes in inguinal hernia surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Surg Innov, 2017, 24(3): 289-298.
[17]	李绍杰，唐健雄，李绍春, 等. 应用生物材料行腹股沟后壁加强重建技术治疗青年腹股沟疝疗效分析[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2019, 39(8): 821-824.
[18]	曹桢，刘雨辰，申英末, 等.SSI补片在不同术式治疗青壮年腹股沟疝中的应用效果.中国普通外科杂志.2019, 28(10): 1-6.
[19]	王宝山，申英末，陈富强, 等. SSI材料生物补片在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中的应用[J/OL].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(2): 85-88.
[20]	Agresta F, Bedin N. Transabdominal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: is there a place for biological mesh?[J]. Hernia, 2008, 12(6): 609-612.
[21]	Ansaloni L, Cambrini P, Catena F, et al. Immune response to small intestinal submucosa(surgisis) implant in humans: preliminary observations[J]. J Invest Surg, 2007, 20(4): 237-241.

变量		生物组(86例)	聚丙烯组(162例)	P值
性别[例(%)]				0.035
	男性	54(62.8)	141(87.0)
	女性	32(37.2)	21(13.0)
年龄		26.3±7.1	25.4±8.0	0.853
BMI(kg/m², ±s)		18.1±3.5	19.0±2.8	0.137
合并情况[例(%)]
	吸烟	19(22.1)	45(27.8)	0.248
	高血压	1(1.2)	1(0.6)	0.514
	下腹部手术史	7(8.1)	21(13.0)	0.181
	胃炎	3(3.5)	7(4.3)	0.794
疝位置[例(%)]				0.601
	左侧	28(32.6)	41(25.3)
	右侧	46(53.4)	87(53.7)
	双侧	12(14.0)	34(21.0)
疝分型[例(%)]				0.876
	Ⅰ型	20(23.3)	40(24.7)
	Ⅱ型	65(75.5)	119(73.5)
	Ⅲ型	1(1.2)	3(1.8)
ASA分级[例(%)]				0.459
	Ⅰ级	85(98.8)	160(98.8)
	Ⅱ级	1(1.2)	2(1.2)
术前VAS评分(分, ±s)		1.6±0.4	1.9±0.5	0.213
术后住院时间(d, ±s)		1.6±0.5	1.3±0.2	0.345

变量		生物组(86例)	聚丙烯组(162例)	P值
性别[例(%)]				0.035
	男性	54(62.8)	141(87.0)
	女性	32(37.2)	21(13.0)
年龄		26.3±7.1	25.4±8.0	0.853
BMI(kg/m², ±s)		18.1±3.5	19.0±2.8	0.137
合并情况[例(%)]
	吸烟	19(22.1)	45(27.8)	0.248
	高血压	1(1.2)	1(0.6)	0.514
	下腹部手术史	7(8.1)	21(13.0)	0.181
	胃炎	3(3.5)	7(4.3)	0.794
疝位置[例(%)]				0.601
	左侧	28(32.6)	41(25.3)
	右侧	46(53.4)	87(53.7)
	双侧	12(14.0)	34(21.0)
疝分型[例(%)]				0.876
	Ⅰ型	20(23.3)	40(24.7)
	Ⅱ型	65(75.5)	119(73.5)
	Ⅲ型	1(1.2)	3(1.8)
ASA分级[例(%)]				0.459
	Ⅰ级	85(98.8)	160(98.8)
	Ⅱ级	1(1.2)	2(1.2)
术前VAS评分(分, ±s)		1.6±0.4	1.9±0.5	0.213
术后住院时间(d, ±s)		1.6±0.5	1.3±0.2	0.345

变量		生物组(86例)	聚丙烯组(162例)	P值
发热[例(%)]		9(10.5)	2(1.2)	0.014
	复发	0	0	-
	感染	0	0	-
血清肿[例(%)]
	1周	81(94.2)	23(14.2)	<0.001
	1个月	67(77.9)	14(8.6)	<0.001
	3个月	45(52.3)	9(5.5)	<0.001
	1年	13(15.1)	2(1.2)	0.001
慢性疼痛[例(%)]		1(1.2)	3(1.9)	0.312
术后VAS评分(分, ±s)
	1周	1.7±0.2	2.7±1.6	0.009
	1个月	0.4±0.1	1.8±0.9	0.011
	3个月	0.6±0.1	0.9±0.2	0.321
	1年	0.2±0.1	0.2±0.1	0.985
异物感[例(%)]		2(2.3)	12(7.4)	0.021
	轻度	1	9
	中度	1	3
	重度	0	0

变量		生物组(86例)	聚丙烯组(162例)	P值
发热[例(%)]		9(10.5)	2(1.2)	0.014
	复发	0	0	-
	感染	0	0	-
血清肿[例(%)]
	1周	81(94.2)	23(14.2)	<0.001
	1个月	67(77.9)	14(8.6)	<0.001
	3个月	45(52.3)	9(5.5)	<0.001
	1年	13(15.1)	2(1.2)	0.001
慢性疼痛[例(%)]		1(1.2)	3(1.9)	0.312
术后VAS评分(分, ±s)
	1周	1.7±0.2	2.7±1.6	0.009
	1个月	0.4±0.1	1.8±0.9	0.011
	3个月	0.6±0.1	0.9±0.2	0.321
	1年	0.2±0.1	0.2±0.1	0.985
异物感[例(%)]		2(2.3)	12(7.4)	0.021
	轻度	1	9
	中度	1	3
	重度	0	0

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export