Literature DB >> 21222008

The design of an industry-sponsored randomized controlled trial to compare synthetic mesh versus biologic mesh for inguinal hernia repair.

C F Bellows1, P P Shadduck, W S Helton, R J Fitzgibbons.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Biologic prostheses are designed to support tissue regeneration rather than just result in a strong scar plate, as is the case with synthetic mesh. It is not known if these newer materials will result in earlier return to normal activities and/or less post-herniorrhaphy groin pain. METHOD/STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, controlled, third-party-blinded multicenter trial was designed to compare the use of a non-cross linked porcine dermis biologic graft [Strattice(TM) Reconstructive Tissue Matrix (RTM), LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ] versus light weight, large pore polypropylene mesh (UltraPro(TM), Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). The study design called for recruitment of 170 men. These men are being followed for a minimum of 2 years. The primary aim of this study is to compare the safety and effectiveness of the two materials in a Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair as measured by resumption of activities of daily living. Secondary outcomes include chronic pain, postoperative complications and the incidence of re-herniation at 12 and 24 months.
RESULTS: This paper discusses the study design, patient recruitment and the current status of the clinical trial. The study involves nine medical centers, all with extensive experience in hernia repair. After 24 months of enrollment, 172 men were randomized and recruitment was then closed. All patients underwent elective repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernias as an outpatient operation. Follow up data are being collected. Data analyses are scheduled at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: We report the design of a multi-center, third-party blinded, randomized clinical trial comparing a new surgical device with existing technology in the repair of inguinal hernias. We believe this investigator-designed and conducted trial could serve as a model for similar trials examining surgical devices performed in collaboration with industry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21222008     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-010-0773-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   4.739


  15 in total

Review 1.  Medical device regulation: an introduction for the practicing physician.

Authors:  William H Maisel
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein's repair with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis Inguinal Hernia Matrix.

Authors:  Luca Ansaloni; Fausto Catena; Federico Coccolini; Filippo Gazzotti; Luigi D'Alessandro; Antonio Daniele Pinna
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 3.  Extracellular matrix biomaterials for soft tissue repair.

Authors:  Kevin G Cornwell; Adam Landsman; Kenneth S James
Journal:  Clin Podiatr Med Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.231

4.  Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair.

Authors:  J Conze; A N Kingsnorth; J B Flament; R Simmermacher; G Arlt; C Langer; E Schippers; M Hartley; V Schumpelick
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Authors:  A J Mangram; T C Horan; M L Pearson; L C Silver; W R Jarvis
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.918

6.  Laparoscopic repair of a Littre's hernia with porcine dermal collagen implant (Permacol).

Authors:  N Smart; A Immanuel; M Mercer-Jones
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2007-02-09       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Assessment of patient functional status after surgery.

Authors:  Martin McCarthy; Olga Jonasson; Chih-Hung Chang; A Simon Pickard; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; James Gibbs; Perry Edelman; Robert Fitzgibbons; Leigh Neumayer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Decellularized human cadaveric dermis provides a safe alternative for primary inguinal hernia repair in contaminated surgical fields.

Authors:  Daniel Albo; Samir S Awad; David H Berger; Charles F Bellows
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Validity of the brief pain inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain.

Authors:  San Keller; Carla M Bann; Sheri L Dodd; Jeff Schein; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.442

Review 10.  Open mesh versus non-mesh repair of groin hernia: meta-analysis of randomised trials based on individual patient data [corrected].

Authors:  A M Grant
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2002-07-26       Impact factor: 4.739

View more
  3 in total

1.  Early report of a randomized comparative clinical trial of Strattice™ reconstructive tissue matrix to lightweight synthetic mesh in the repair of inguinal hernias.

Authors:  C F Bellows; P Shadduck; W S Helton; R Martindale; B C Stouch; R Fitzgibbons
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2013-03-31       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 2.  Uniformity of Chronic Pain Assessment after Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Critical Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Marijke Molegraaf; Johan Lange; Arthur Wijsmuller
Journal:  Eur Surg Res       Date:  2016-08-27       Impact factor: 1.745

3.  Long-term outcome of biologic graft: a case report.

Authors:  Kim-Phung Nguyen; Veronica Zotos; Eddy C Hsueh
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2014-07-17
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.