Comparative study of new non-crosslinked biological mesh and crosslinked biological mesh in inguinal hernia repair in adolescents and young adults

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.06.014

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

A comparative study was conducted on the clinical efficacy of domestic new non-crosslinked acellular matrix biological mesh and crosslinked biological mesh in the treatment of inguinal hernia in adolescents and young adults, to provide new materials in treatment of inguinal hernia for this population.

Methods

A single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted. Clinical data of 120 adolescent and young adults with inguinal hernia who were treated in the Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery of Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Affiliated to Capital Medical University from June 2019 to December 2020 were collected and analyzed. There were 112 males and 8 females with an average age of 32 years (13~45 years). The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the random number table method. 60 patients in experimental group underwent Lichtenstein repair with domestic new non-crosslinked acellular matrix biological mesh; 60 patients in control group underwent Lichtenstein repair with cross-linked biological mesh. Data of clinical indicators of the two groups were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay between the experimental group and the control group (P>0.05). The hospitalization cost of the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). Seroma rate in the experimental group at 1 week after operation was significantly higher than that in the control group (38.3% vs 20.0%, P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 month and 3 months postoperatively (P>0.05). The follow-up time in experimental group and control group was (20.17±5.57) months and (19.45±5.70) months, respectively. No patients developed postoperative chronic pain, foreign body sensation, testicular ischemia/atrophy, wound infection and mesh infection during the follow-up duration in both groups.

Conclusion

The domestic new non-crosslinked acellular matrix biological mesh is safe and effective in the treatment of inguinal hernia in adolescents and young adults, which is equivalent to the clinical efficacy of crosslinked biological mesh. It is an alternative material for the treatment of inguinal hernia in adolescents and young adults, and worthy of clinical promotion.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Herniorrhaphy, Biological mesh, Efficacy

Jing Liu, Jintao Lao, Yingmo Shen. Comparative study of new non-crosslinked biological mesh and crosslinked biological mesh in inguinal hernia repair in adolescents and young adults[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(06): 672-676.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.06.014

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V16/I06/672

Figures/Tables 3

References 28

[1]	Chai Y, Xu J, Zhang Y, et al. Evaluation of decellularization protocols for production of porcine small intestine submucosa for use in abdominal wall reconstruction[J]. Hernia, 2020, 24(6): 1221-1231.
[2]	Miserez M, Jairam A P, Boersema G S A, et al. Resorbable Synthetic Meshes for Abdominal Wall Defects in Preclinical Setting: A Literature Review[J]. J Surg Res, 2019, 237: 67-75.
[3]	Birolini C, de Miranda J S, Tanaka E Y, et al. The use of synthetic mesh in contaminated and infected abdominal wall repairs: challenging the dogma—A long-term prospective clinical trial[J]. Hernia, 2020, 24(2): 307-323.
[4]	de Vries F E E, Hodgkinson J D, Claessen J J M, et al. Long-term outcomes after contaminated complex abdominal wall reconstruction [J]. Hernia, 2020, 24(3): 459-468.
[5]	Rosen M J, Krpata D M, Petro C C, et al. Biologic vs Synthetic Mesh for Single-stage Repair of Contaminated Ventral Hernias[J]. JAMA Surgery, 2022, 157(4): 293.
[6]	刘静, 申英末, 陈杰, 等. 不同类型脱细胞基质材料生物补片在青少年腹股沟疝修补术中的应用价值[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19(7): 773-778.
[7]	Chu C B, Chen J, Shen Y M, et al. Individualized treatment of pediatric inguinal hernia reduces adolescent recurrence rate: an analysis of 3006 cases[J]. Surg Today, 2020, 50(5): 499-508.
[8]	顾岩, 杨建军, 宋致成, 等. 生物材料在青少年腹股沟疝治疗中应用价值[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2019, 39(8): 803-806.
[9]	任骏, 闵凯. 组织诱导式生物补片在五例青少年腹股沟疝修补术中的初步应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(4): 346-349.
[10]	徐滔, 刘子文. 生物补片在青少年腹股沟疝的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(1): 1-4.
[11]	周建平. 关于腹股沟疝分型[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(1): 96.
[12]	HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[13]	Bakker W J, Aufenacker T J, Boschman J S, et al. Lightweight mesh is recommended in open inguinal(Lichtenstein) hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Surgery, 2020, 167(3): 581-589.
[14]	Sun L, Chen J, Shen Y, et al. Comparison of new biologic surgical mesh with polypropylene mesh in inguinal hernia repair[J]. Minerva Med, 2020, 111(4): 373-375.
[15]	Li B, Zhang X, Man Y, et al. Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repairs with porcine small intestine submucosa: a 5-year follow-up. a prospective randomized controlled study[J]. Regen Biomater, 2021, 8(1): rbaa055.
[16]	Ravo B, Falasco G. Pure tissue inguinal hernia repair with the use of biological mesh: a 10-year follows up. A prospective study[J]. Hernia, 2020, 24(1): 121-126.
[17]	Kaufmann R, Timmermans L, van Loon Y T, et al. Repair of complex abdominal wall hernias with a cross-linked porcine acellular matrix: cross-sectional results of a Dutch cohort study[J]. Int J Surg, 2019, 65: 120-127.
[18]	唐健雄, 黄磊, 李绍杰. 生物材料在腹壁疝治疗中的现状和前景[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19(7): 720-724.
[19]	Kaufmann R, Jairam A P, Mulder I M, et al. Non-Cross-Linked Collagen Mesh Performs Best in a Physiologic, Noncontaminated Rat Model[J]. Surg Innov, 2019, 26(3): 302-311.
[20]	Deeken C R, Melman L, Jenkins E D, et al. Histologic and Biomechanical Evaluation of Crosslinked and Non-Crosslinked Biologic Meshes in a Porcine Model of Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2011, 212(5): 880-888.
[21]	Pascual G, Rodriguez M, Sotomayor S, et al. Effects of collagen prosthesis cross-linking on long-term tissue regeneration following the repair of an abdominal wall defect[J]. Wound Repair Regen, 2012, 20(3): 402-413.
[22]	孙立, 陈杰. 应用生物补片行疝修补术后并发症防治[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(7): 770-772.
[23]	曹桢, 刘雨辰, 申英末, 等. 猪小肠黏膜下层脱细胞基质补片在不同术式治疗青壮年腹股沟疝中的应用效果[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2019, 28(10): 1275-1280.
[24]	高超,闫治波,王明刚,等.压迫治疗对单侧腹股沟疝无张力修补术后发生血清肿影响的倾向评分匹配分析[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020,19(7):742-750.
[25]	Mcpherson T B, Liang H, Record R D, et al. Gala(1, 3)Gal Epitope in Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa[J]. Tissue Eng, 2000, 6(3): 233-239.
[26]	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.
[27]	Allman A J, Mcpherson T B, Badylak S F, et al. Xenogeneic extracellular matrix grafts elicit a TH₂-restricted immune response1[J]. Transplantation, 2001, 71(11): 1631-1640.
[28]	Sun L, Chen J, Shen Y. Randomized Controlled Trial Of Lichtenstein Repair Of Indirect Inguinal Hernias With Two Biologic Meshes From Porcine Small Intestine Submucosa[J]. Ther Clin Risk Manag, 2019, 15: 1277-1282.

组别	例数	年龄(岁,±s)	性别		体质量指数(kg/m²,±s)	美国麻醉医师协会分级		Gilbert分型				疝部位		疝分类		随访时间(月,±s)
组别	例数	年龄(岁,±s)	男	女	体质量指数(kg/m²,±s)	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅱ型	Ⅲ型	Ⅳ型	Ⅴ型	右侧	左侧	斜疝	直疝	随访时间(月,±s)
试验组	60	31.68±10.00	55(91.7)	5(8.3)	23.98±2.42	39(65.0)	21(35.0)	10(16.7)	45(75.0)	2(3.3)	3(5.0)	34(56.7)	26(43.3)	55(91.7)	5(8.3)	20.17±5.57
对照组	60	33.13± 8.01	57(95.0)	3(5.0)	24.32±2.71	36(60.0)	24(40.0)	9(15.0)	43(71.7)	6(10.0)	2(3.3)	38(63.3)	22(36.7)	52(86.7)	8(13.3)	19.45±5.70
t/χ²		0.843	0.536		0.721	0.320		2.283				0.556		0.776		-0.697
P值		0.401	0.717		0.473	0.572		0.558				0.456		0.378		0.487

组别	例数	年龄(岁,±s)	性别		体质量指数(kg/m²,±s)	美国麻醉医师协会分级		Gilbert分型				疝部位		疝分类		随访时间(月,±s)
组别	例数	年龄(岁,±s)	男	女	体质量指数(kg/m²,±s)	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅱ型	Ⅲ型	Ⅳ型	Ⅴ型	右侧	左侧	斜疝	直疝	随访时间(月,±s)
试验组	60	31.68±10.00	55(91.7)	5(8.3)	23.98±2.42	39(65.0)	21(35.0)	10(16.7)	45(75.0)	2(3.3)	3(5.0)	34(56.7)	26(43.3)	55(91.7)	5(8.3)	20.17±5.57
对照组	60	33.13± 8.01	57(95.0)	3(5.0)	24.32±2.71	36(60.0)	24(40.0)	9(15.0)	43(71.7)	6(10.0)	2(3.3)	38(63.3)	22(36.7)	52(86.7)	8(13.3)	19.45±5.70
t/χ²		0.843	0.536		0.721	0.320		2.283				0.556		0.776		-0.697
P值		0.401	0.717		0.473	0.572		0.558				0.456		0.378		0.487

组别	例数	手术时间(min)	术中出血量(ml)	住院费用(元)	住院时间(d)
试验组	60	52.53±10.55	2.72±1.54	10 439.84±273.97	1.67±0.71
对照组	60	53.28±10.60	2.80±1.36	14 982.67±334.85	1.73±0.78
χ²		0.388	0.314	-1.883	0.492
P值		0.698	0.754	0.021	0.624

组别	例数	手术时间(min)	术中出血量(ml)	住院费用(元)	住院时间(d)
试验组	60	52.53±10.55	2.72±1.54	10 439.84±273.97	1.67±0.71
对照组	60	53.28±10.60	2.80±1.36	14 982.67±334.85	1.73±0.78
χ²		0.388	0.314	-1.883	0.492
P值		0.698	0.754	0.021	0.624

组别	例数	复发	慢性疼痛	异物感	睾丸缺血/萎缩	切口脂肪液化	伤口感染	补片感染	切口血清肿				死亡
组别	例数	复发	慢性疼痛	异物感	睾丸缺血/萎缩	切口脂肪液化	伤口感染	补片感染	术后1周	术后1个月	术后3个月	术后6个月	死亡
试验组	60	1(1.7)	0	0	0	0	0	0	23(38.3)	12(20.0)	6(10.0)	0	0
对照组	60	0	0	0	0	2(3.3)	0	0	12(20.0)	9(15.0)	4( 6.7)	0	0
χ²		1.008				2.034			6.659	0.519	0.436
P值		1.000				0.496			0.027	0.471	0.509

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export