Comparison of the efficacy of domestic biological mesh and polypropylene mesh in daytime Lichtenstein repair of oblique inguinal hernia

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.05.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the application value of porcine small intestinal submucosa biological mesh in day surgery for inguinal hernia.

Methods

The retrospective study enrolled a total of 100 patients with inguinal hernia who underwent Lichtenstein surgery in the ambulatory ward of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from January 2019 to December 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: the small intestine submucosa mesh (SIS) group and the polypropylene mesh (Control) group. Clinical demographic data, intraoperative data and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed.

Results

In terms of operative time, there was no statistical significance (P>0.05) between the SIS group and the control group. Analysis of early postoperative outcomes revealed that the number of patients with postoperative fever and seroma significantly increased in the SIS group (P<0.05); the number of patients with postoperative incision infection and postoperative pain significantly decreased in the SIS group (P<0.05). Long-term postoperative outcomes results suggested that the SIS group could significantly improve chronic pain and foreign body sensation compared to the control group (P<0.05). No statistical difference of recurrence rate was found between the SIS group and the control group at 1 year after surgery (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The incidence of early postoperative fever and seroma is higher with SIS mesh than with polypropylene mesh, but SIS mesh is superior to polypropylene mesh in terms of early incisional infection and pain. SIS mesh is also superior to polypropylene mesh in terms of distant chronic pain and foreign body sensation, and individualized principles should be followed by clinical application.

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

Rui Xu, Lu Peng, Junjie Zhou, Qun Qian. Comparison of the efficacy of domestic biological mesh and polypropylene mesh in daytime Lichtenstein repair of oblique inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(05): 535-539.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.05.010

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V16/I05/535

Figures/Tables 3

References 30

[1]	唐健雄，华蕾，张逖. 上海成人腹股沟疝患病情况的多中心研究[J]. 外科理论与实践, 2002, 7(6): 421-422.
[2]	孙立，陈杰，申英末. 国产新型生物疝修补片与聚丙烯产品在腹股沟疝修补术中的疗效对比[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(2): 101-104.
[3]	成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 244-246.
[4]	王伟刚，俞永江. 疝补片材料学的现状和展望[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2022, 29(4): 556-560.
[5]	Huerta S, Varshney A, Patel P M, et al. Biological mesh implants for abdominal hernia repair: US food and drug administration approval process and systematic review of its efficacy[J]. JAMA Surg, 2016, 151(4): 374-381.
[6]	靳翠红，申英末，孙立, 等. 国产新型生物补片的安全性及有效性研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(1): 16-20.
[7]	任利东，曹中伟，娜日娜, 等. 国产猪小肠黏膜下层生物补片与聚丙烯补片在Lichtenstein疝修补术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(6): 585-588.
[8]	李宝山，代金明，满艺, 等. 猪小肠黏膜下层生物补片应用于腹股沟疝修补术的远期疗效[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2021, 20(7): 810-814.
[9]	嵇武，刘亚萍，戴玮. 我国日间手术开展现状与前景展望[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(2): 199-202.
[10]	申英末，孙立，陈杰. 腹股沟疝日间手术的发展历程及诊疗经验[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19(7): 725-728.
[11]	安燚，王振军. 日间手术的概念和基本问题[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2007(1): 38-40.
[12]	陈松耀，戴伟钢，陈创奇. 生物补片在疝与腹壁外科的临床应用进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(2): 90-93.
[13]	Reid F M, Elders A, Breeman S, et al. How common are complications following polypropylene mesh, biological xenograft and native tissue surgery for pelvic organ prolapse? A secondary analysis from the PROSPECT trial[J]. BJOG, 2021, 128(13): 2180-2189.
[14]	Nie X, Xiao D, Wang W, et al. Comparison of Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa versus Polypropylene in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(8), e0135073.
[15]	Ansaloni L, Catena F, D'Alessandro L. Prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing Lichtenstein's repair of inguinal hernia with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis gold soft tissue graft: preliminary results[J]. Acta Biomed, 2003, 74 Suppl 2: 10-14.
[16]	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.
[17]	孙立，陈杰，申英末, 等. 生物补片在腹股沟疝治疗中应用[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 11(11): 1223-1227.
[18]	申英末，陈杰，杨硕, 等. 脱细胞基质材料生物补片在青少年（6~18岁）患者腹股沟疝修补术中应用的研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2011, 5(1): 71-76.
[19]	戴维，彭文定，陈念平, 等. 组织胶水在腹股沟疝无张力修补术切口的应用研究[J]. 吉林医学, 2015, 36(18): 4008-4009.
[20]	Miserez M, Lefering R, Famiglietti F, et al. Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh in Laparoscopic and Open Ventral Hernia Repair(LAPSIS): Results of a Multinational, Randomized, Controlled, and Double-blind Trial[J]. Ann Surg, 2021, 273(1): 57-65.
[21]	Zhou H, Shen Y, Zhang Z, et al. Comparison of outcomes of ventral hernia repair using different meshes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis[J]. Hernia, 2022, Online ahead of print.
[22]	Sweitzer K, Carruthers K H, Blume L, et al. The Biomechanical Properties of Meshed versus Perforated Acellular Dermal Matrices(ADMs)[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 2021, 9(3): e3454.
[23]	Liu Y, Cao Z, Yang H, et al. Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh to Treat Inguinal Hernia in Young Adults Using Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Controlled Study[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2020, 30(4): 367-370.
[24]	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.
[25]	Novitsky Y W, Rosen M J. The biology of biologics: basic science and clinical concepts[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2012, 130(5 Suppl 2): 9S-17S.
[26]	Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, et al. Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein's repair with polypropylenemesh versus Surgisis Inguinal Hernia Matrix[J]. Am J Surg, 2009, 198( 3): 303-312.
[27]	陈俊生，宋晓彪，郭剑辉, 等. 脱细胞基质材料在腹腔镜治疗青年腹股沟疝临床效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(3): 288-292.
[28]	Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, et al. Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias[J]. Eur J Surg, 1999, 165(7): 665-673.
[29]	Pande T, Naidu C S. Mesh infection in cases of polypropylene mesh hernioplasty[J]. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg, 2020, 24(4): 849-856.
[30]	Mestak O, Matouskova E, Spurkova Z, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells seeded on cross-linked and noncross-linked acellular porcine dermal scaffolds for long-term full-thickness hernia repair in a small animal model[J]. Artif Organs, 2014, 38(7): 572-579.

组别	例数	年龄(岁)	体质量指数(kg/m²)	手术时间(min)
试验组	50	57.2±13.6	24.6±3.2	52.7±14.5
对照组	50	61.3±14.2	23.5±3.7	45.6±11.3
t值		1.290	0.682	1.481
P值		0.213	0.478	0.149

组别	例数	年龄(岁)	体质量指数(kg/m²)	手术时间(min)
试验组	50	57.2±13.6	24.6±3.2	52.7±14.5
对照组	50	61.3±14.2	23.5±3.7	45.6±11.3
t值		1.290	0.682	1.481
P值		0.213	0.478	0.149

组别	例数	术后发热	切口感染	术后VAS评分(±s)	术后血清肿
试验组	50	9 (18.0)	0	3±1	17(34.0)
对照组	50	1 (2.0)	4(8.0)	5±2	3(6.0)
χ²/t		7.111	4.167	2.893	12.250
P值		0.008	0.041	0.005	0.000

组别	例数	术后发热	切口感染	术后VAS评分(±s)	术后血清肿
试验组	50	9 (18.0)	0	3±1	17(34.0)
对照组	50	1 (2.0)	4(8.0)	5±2	3(6.0)
χ²/t		7.111	4.167	2.893	12.250
P值		0.008	0.041	0.005	0.000

组别	例数	慢性疼痛	异物感	补片感染	复发
试验组	50	0	2(4)	0	0
对照组	50	4 (8)	11(22)	1 (2)	0
χ²		4.167	7.162	1.010	-
P值		0.041	0.007	0.315	-

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export