Literature DB >> 16033714

Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia.

S Schmidbauer1, R Ladurner, K K Hallfeldt, Thomas Mussack.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of retromuscular, preperitoneal sublay technique using polypropylene (PP) meshes had significantly decreased the recurrence rates after open incisional hernia repair. Nevertheless, recent data of single institutions reported about non-acceptable high hernia recurrences. The objective of this study was to determine early complications and the long-term course of patients who underwent open sublay hernia repair using heavy-weight versus low-weight PP meshes.
METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 1997, all consecutive patients received large pore-sized, monofilament heavy-weight PP meshes (Prolene); from January 1998 to December 2001, only large pore-sized, low-weight PP meshes (Vypro) composed of multifilaments were used. The clinical course of all patients was registered during the hospital stay as well as 3 months and at least 12 months after surgery.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients (mean age 56 +/- 13 years) underwent sublay hernia repair with heavy-weight PP meshes, 106 patients (mean age 60 +/- 14 years) with low-weight PP meshes. No significant differences were determined concerning age, gender, BMI, ASA score, hernia size 25 - 99 cm(2) and number of primary midline incisions. In contrast, mean hernia size and number of hernia size > or = 100 cm(2) were significantly higher, whereas number of hernia size < 25 cm(2), ratio of recurrent hernia and length of hospital stay were lower in the low-weight PP mesh group. Minor complications (17%) appeared more frequently in the heavy-weight than in the low-weight PP mesh group (13%). One patient each with major bleeding required re-operation in both groups. One patient with lethal pulmonary embolism in the heavy-weight PP mesh group and one patient with unrecognised enterotomy and re-operation in the low-weight PP mesh group were registered. In the long-term run (mean follow-up 92 +/- 20 months), patients of the heavy-weight PP mesh group complained significantly more frequently about chronic pain and "stiff abdomen" than those of the low-weight PP mesh group (46 +/- 14 months). Two hernia recurrences occurred in each study group. Two of them were found after midline hernia repair at the edge of the mesh, the remainder were detected after lateral hernia repair.
CONCLUSION: Large pore-sized low-weight PP meshes composed of multifilaments are clearly to be favoured over large pore-sized, monofilament heavy-weight PP meshes because of better abdominal wall compliance and less chronic pain. However, both types of meshes are convincing due to high tensile strength and low recurrence rates in the long-term run.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16033714

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Med Res        ISSN: 0949-2321            Impact factor:   2.175


  34 in total

1.  Retromuscular mesh repair of midline incisional hernia with polyester standard mesh: monocentric experience of 261 consecutive patients with a 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Tigran Poghosyan; Nicolas Veyrie; Nicola Corigliano; Nada Helmy; Stephane Servajean; Jean-Luc Bouillot
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Collagen-coated vs noncoated low-weight polypropylene meshes in a sheep model for vaginal surgery. A pilot study.

Authors:  Renaud de Tayrac; Antoine Alves; Michel Thérin
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2006-08-29

Review 3.  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.

Authors:  Dirk Weyhe; Orlin Belyaev; Christophe Müller; Kirsten Meurer; Karl-Heinz Bauer; Georgios Papapostolou; Waldemar Uhl
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Experimental comparison of monofile light and heavy polypropylene meshes: less weight does not mean less biological response.

Authors:  Grigoris Chatzimavroudis; Basilis Papaziogas; Ioannis Koutelidakis; Konstantinos Atmatzidis
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Comparison of complete versus partial mesh removal for the treatment of chronic mesh infection after abdominal wall hernia repair.

Authors:  S Levy; D Moszkowicz; T Poghosyan; A Beauchet; M -M Chandeze; K Vychnevskaia; F Peschaud; J -L Bouillot
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 6.  Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial.

Authors:  A Coda; R Lamberti; S Martorana
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Long term outcome and quality of life after open incisional hernia repair--light versus heavy weight meshes.

Authors:  Roland Ladurner; Costanza Chiapponi; Quirin Linhuber; Thomas Mussack
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines.

Authors:  E M van der Schans; T J C Paulides; N A Wijffels; E C J Consten
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-08-11       Impact factor: 3.781

9.  Central failures of lightweight monofilament polyester mesh causing hernia recurrence: a cautionary note.

Authors:  C C Petro; E H Nahabet; C N Criss; S B Orenstein; H A von Recum; Y W Novitsky; M J Rosen
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, double blind pilot-study to evaluate safety and efficacy of the non-absorbable Optilene Mesh Elastic versus the partly absorbable Ultrapro Mesh for incisional hernia repair.

Authors:  Christoph Seiler; Petra Baumann; Peter Kienle; Andreas Kuthe; Jens Kuhlgatz; Rainer Engemann; Moritz V Frankenberg; Hanns-Peter Knaebel
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.