Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Open or laparoscopic preperitoneal mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia? A randomized controlled trial. Short-term outcome after mesh or shouldice herniorrhaphy: a randomized, prospective study. Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair of incisional and primary ventral hernia: results of a prospective randomized study. Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for inguinal hernia: outcome and cost. A prospective study between two different techniques for the repair of a large recurrent ventral hernia: a double mesh intraperitoneal repair versus onlay mesh repair. Laparoscopic versus open preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomised trial. Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial.
To evaluate the influence of the laparoscopic technique in hernia repair regarding time to full recovery and return to work, complications, recurrence rate, and economic aspects.
                Several studies have shown advantages in terms of less pain and faster recovery after laparoscopic hernia repair, whereas others have not, and the cost-effectiveness has been questioned. The laparoscopic technique must be thoroughly compared with the open procedures before its true place in hernia surgery can be defined.
                Six hundred thirteen male patients aged 40 to 75 years were randomized to the conventional procedure, preperitoneal mesh placed by the open technique, or laparoscopic preperitoneal mesh (TAPP). Follow-up was after 7 days, 8 weeks, and 1 year.
                Of 613 patients undergoing surgery, 604 (98.5%) were followed for 1 year. Patients who underwent TAPP gained full recovery after 18.4 days, compared with 24.2 days for open mesh (p < 0.001) and 26.4 days for the conventional procedure (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent TAPP returned to work after 14.7 days, compared with 17.7 days for open mesh (p = 0.05) and 17.9 days for the conventional procedure (p = 0.04). They also had significantly less restriction in physical activities after 7 days. The TAPP procedure was more expensive, mainly as a result of longer surgical time and equipment costs, even after compensation for earlier return to work. Complications were more common in the TAPP group, with a varying pattern between the groups. Four recurrences in the conventional, 11 in the open mesh, and 4 in the TAPP group were recorded after 1 year (p = n.s.).
                The laparoscopic technique results in both shorter time to full recovery and shorter time to return to work, at the price of substantially increased costs. Giant prosthetic reinforcement of the visceral sac (GPRVS), an open preperitoneal mesh repair, is a very effective groin hernia repair. Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP), based on the same principle, is expected to combine low recurrence rates with minimal postoperation morbidity.
                Seventy-nine patients with 93 recurrent and 15 concomitant primary inguinal hernias were randomized between GPRVS (37 patients) and TAPP (42 patients). Operating time, complications, pain, analgesia use, disability period, and recurrences were recorded.
                Mean operating time was 56 min with GPRVS versus 79 min with TAPP (p < 0. 001). Most complications were minor, except for a pulmonary embolus and an ileus, both after GPRVS. Patients experienced less pain after a laparoscopic repair. Average disability period was 23 days with GPRVS versus 13 days with TAPP (p = 0.03) for work, and 29 versus 21 days, respectively (p = 0.07) for physical activities. Recurrence rates at a mean follow-up of 34 months were 1 in 52 (1.9%) for GPRVS versus 7 in 56 (12.5%) for TAPP (p = 0.04). Hospital costs in U.S. dollars were comparable, with GPRVS at $1,150 and TAPP at $1,179.
                Laparoscopic repair of recurrent inguinal hernia has a lower morbidity than GPRVS. However, laparoscopic repair is a difficult operation, and the potential technical failure rate is higher. With regard to recurrence rates, the open preperitoneal prosthetic mesh repair remains the best repair. Retrospective analyses have shown that long-term recurrence rates after Lichtenstein mesh and Shouldice herniorrhaphies are low. Therefore differences in short-term outcome may be important determinants of one's choice of repair. Although proponents of the mesh repair claim that their methods is less morbid, to our knowledge no prospective comparative studies of short-term morbidity have been reported.
                One hundred five adult patients were randomized to undergo either a mesh or Shouldice inguinal hernia repair. Postoperative pain, narcotic use, and time to resumption of usual activities and employment were recorded. Patients were blinded to the type of repair received until all data were collected.
                There was no difference between the herniorrhaphy methods with respect to postoperative pain, duration of narcotic use, and time to resumption of usual activity and employment. Recovery was rapid for both groups of patients. By 3 days after operation, 50% of patients rated their pain as very mild or less and no longer required narcotic analgesics. Patients in both groups returned to usual activity and work by a median of 9 days after operation.
                Both of these well-established methods can be used to repair inguinal hernias with local anesthetics in an outpatient setting with minimal morbidity. Despite the "tension-free" design of the mesh repair, short-term outcomes of mesh and Shouldice repairs of inguinal hernias do not differ. Incisional hernia is an important complication of abdominal surgery. Its repair has progressed from a primary suture repair to various mesh repairs and laparoscopic repair. Laparoscopic mesh repair is a promising alternative, and in the absence of consensus, needs prospective randomized controlled trials.
                Between April 2003 and April 2005, 66 patients with incisional, primary ventral and recurrent hernias were randomized to receive either open retro-rectus mesh repair or laparoscopic mesh repair. These patients were followed up at 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals thereafter for a mean of 12.17 months (open repair group) and 13.73 months (laparoscopic repair group).
                Lower abdominal hernias after gynecologic operations constituted the majority of the hernias (approximately 50%) in both groups. There was no significant injury to viscera or vessel in either group and no conversions. The defect size was 42.12 cm in the open (group 1) and 65.66 cm2 in the laparoscopic group (group 2), and the prosthesis sizes were, respectively, 152.67 cm2 and 203.83 cm2. The hospital stay was 3.43 days in open group and 1.47 days in laparoscopic group (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the pain scores between the two groups. More wound-related infectious complications occurred in the open group (33%) than in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.013). There was one recurrence in the open repair group (3%) and two recurrences in laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.55).
                Laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernias is superior to open mesh repair in terms of significantly less blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and excellent cosmetic outcome. To compare vaginal repair augmented by mesh with traditional colporrhaphy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
                Prospective randomised controlled trial.
                Tertiary teaching hospital.
                One hundred and thirty-nine women with stage >or=2 prolapse according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system requiring both anterior and posterior compartment repair.
                Subjects were randomised to anterior and posterior vaginal repair with mesh augmentation (mesh group, n = 69) or traditional anterior and posterior colporrhaphy (no mesh group, n = 70).
                The primary outcome was the absence of POP-Q stage >or=2 prolapse at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were symptoms, quality-of-life outcomes and satisfaction with surgery. Complications were also reported.
                For subjects attending the 12-month review, success in the mesh group was 81.0% (51 of 63 subjects) compared with 65.6% (40/61) in the no mesh group and was not significantly different (P-value = 0.07). A high level of satisfaction with surgery and improvements in symptoms and quality-of-life data were observed at 12 months compared to baseline in both groups, but there was no significant difference in these outcomes between the two groups. Vaginal mesh exposure occurred in four women in the mesh group (5.6%). De novo dyspareunia was reported by five of 30 (16.7%) sexually active women in the mesh group and five of 33 (15.2%) in the no mesh group at 12 months.
                In this study, vaginal surgery augmented by mesh did not result in significantly less recurrent prolapse than traditional colporrhaphy 12 months following surgery. The objective of this study was to determine the best treatment of incisional hernia, taking into account recurrence, complications, discomfort, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction.
                Long-term results of incisional hernia repair are lacking. Retrospective studies and the midterm results of this study indicate that mesh repair is superior to suture repair. However, many surgeons are still performing suture repair.
                Between 1992 and 1998, a multicenter trial was performed, in which 181 eligible patients with a primary or first-time recurrent midline incisional hernia were randomly assigned to suture or mesh repair. In 2003, follow-up was updated.
                Median follow-up was 75 months for suture repair and 81 months for mesh repair patients. The 10-year cumulative rate of recurrence was 63% for suture repair and 32% for mesh repair (P < 0.001). Abdominal aneurysm (P = 0.01) and wound infection (P = 0.02) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrence. In patients with small incisional hernias, the recurrence rates were 67% after suture repair and 17% after mesh repair (P = 0.003). One hundred twenty-six patients completed long-term follow-up (median follow-up 98 months). In the mesh repair group, 17% suffered a complication, compared with 8% in the suture repair group (P = 0.17). Abdominal pain was more frequent in suture repair patients (P = 0.01), but there was no difference in scar pain, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction.
                Mesh repair results in a lower recurrence rate and less abdominal pain and does not result in more complications than suture repair. Suture repair of incisional hernia should be abandoned. To compare efficacy and safety of trocar-guided tension-free vaginal mesh insertion with conventional vaginal prolapse repair in patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.
                Patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse stage II or higher were randomly assigned to either conventional vaginal prolapse surgery or polypropylene mesh insertion. Primary outcome was anatomic failure (pelvic organ prolapse stage II or higher) in the treated vaginal compartments. Secondary outcomes were subjective improvement, effects on bother, quality of life, and adverse events. Questionnaires such as the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and Urogenital Distress Inventory were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Anatomic outcomes were assessed by an unblinded surgeon. Power calculation with α=0.05 and β=0.80 indicated that 194 patients were needed.
                Ninety-seven women underwent conventional repair and 93 mesh repair. The follow-up rate after 12 months was 186 of 190 patients (98%). Twelve months postsurgery, anatomic failure in the treated compartment was observed in 38 of 84 patients (45.2%) in the conventional group and in eight of 83 patients (9.6%) in the mesh group (P<.001; odds ratio, 7.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.3-18). Patients in either group reported less bulge and overactive bladder symptoms. Subjective improvement was reported by 64 of 80 patients (80%) in the conventional group compared with 63 of 78 patients (81%) in the mesh group. Mesh exposure was detected in 14 of 83 patients (16.9%).
                At 12 months, the number of anatomic failures observed after tension-free vaginal mesh insertion was less than after conventional vaginal prolapse repair. Symptom decrease and improvement of quality of life were equal in both groups.
                ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00372190.
                I. To compare tension-free open mesh hernioplasty under local anaesthetic with transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair under general anaesthetic.
                A randomised controlled trial of 403 patients with inguinal hernias.
                Two acute general hospitals in London between May 1995 and December 1996.
                400 patients with a diagnosis of groin hernia, 200 in each group. Main outcome measures: Time until discharge, postoperative pain, and complications; patients' perceived health (SF-36), duration of convalescence, and patients' satisfaction with surgery; and health service costs.
                More patients in the open group (96%) than in the laparoscopic group (89%) were discharged on the same day as the operation (chi2 = 6.7; 1 df; P=0.01). Although pain scores were lower in the open group while the effect of the local anaesthetic persisted (proportional odds ratio at 2 hours 3.5 (2.3 to 5.1)), scores after open repair were significantly higher for each day of the first week (0.5 (0.3 to 0.7) on day 7) and during the second week (0.7 (0.5 to 0.9)). At 1 month there was a greater improvement (or less deterioration) in mean SF-36 scores over baseline in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group on seven of eight dimensions, reaching significance on five. For every activity considered the median time until return to normal was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic group. Patients randomised to laparoscopic repair were more satisfied with surgery at 1 month and 3 months after surgery. The mean cost per patient of laparoscopic repair was 335 pounds (95% confidence interval 228 pounds to 441 pounds) more than the cost of open repair.
                This study confirms that laparoscopic hernia repair has considerable short term clinical advantages after discharge compared with open mesh hernioplasty, although it was more expensive. Massive ventral hernias are difficult to repair, especially with multiple recurrences. Numerous methods of repair have been described with an overall recurrence rate up to 33% after first repair and 44% after second repair, mostly occurring within 3 years of the repair.
                This is a prospective study on 41 patients who underwent surgery between January 2000 and August 2004 for recurrent large ventral hernias. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included 22 patients, who were subjected to suture repair with an onlay polypropylene mesh, and group B, which included 19 patients, who were subjected to a tailored double mesh (Vicryl + polypropylene) intraperitoneal repair.
                Superficial wound infection occurred in two patients (4.8%), one in each group. By a median follow up of 30 months, seroma formation or hernia recurrence was not found in group B in comparison to seven and six cases, respectively, in group A (p < or = 0.000). There was no intraabdominal complication in the cases subjected to double mesh intraperitoneal repair due to the protective effect of the inner Vicryl layer, which is characterized by its low reactivity.
                A double mesh intraperitoneal repair (ADMIR) is successful for the repair of recurrent large ventral hernias as it is applicable to all sites of ventral hernias. The mesh is mostly hidden within the abdomen with relatively affordable pain allowing for early mobilization, the complication rate is low and so far no recurrence was reported. A long-term follow up with a larger number of cases is advisable in order to determine the long-term success of this kind of repair. Before choosing between open and laparoscopic preperitoneal tension-free repair, a study comparing their safety and short-term outcome was needed. No randomised studies comparing the two hernia repair techniques have hitherto been published.
                A prospective randomised study was carried out comparing laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal mesh herniorrhaphy (n = 24) to open preperitoneal mesh herniorrhaphy (n = 25).
                When comparing unilateral repairs, the mean operation time was significantly (P < 0.01) shorter in the open group (55 min) than in the laparoscopic group (66 min). Pain on movement (P < 0.05) and pain on coughing (P < 0.01) receded more rapidly in the laparoscopic group. The median time before return to work or normal activity was 7 days (range 1-60) in laparoscopic and 5 days (1-30) in open repair. There were five (21%) complications associated with the laparoscopic procedure, while the open procedure resulted in two (8%) complications. After a median follow-up of 18 months the recurrence rate in the laparoscopic group was 13% and in the open group 8%.
                In this study the open method was associated with fewer complications and recurrences than the laparoscopic technique. Despite the decreased postoperative discomfort after laparoscopic repair, there was no significant difference in median time before return to work or normal activity. These results together with the higher cost of the laparoscopic procedure suggest that the open method is more suitable at least for unilateral hernias. Laparoscopic repair of ventral incisional hernias has not been proved to be safer than open mesh repair.
                Prospective randomized trial conducted between February 1, 2004, to January 31, 2007.
                Four Veterans Affairs medical centers.
                One hundred sixty-two patients with ventral incisional hernias.
                Standardized laparoscopic or open repair.
                Overall complication rates at 8 weeks and the odds of complications, adjusted for study site, body mass index, and hernia type.
                Of the 162 randomized patients, 146 underwent surgery (73 open and 73 laparoscopic repairs). Complications were less common in the laparoscopic group (23 patients [31.5%]) compared with the open repair group (35 patients [47.9%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.91; P = .03). Surgical site infection through 8 weeks was less common in the laparoscopic group (5.6% vs 23.3%; AOR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.6). The mean worst pain score in the laparoscopic group was 15.2 mm lower on a visual analog scale at 52 weeks (95% CI, 1.0-29.3; P = .04). Time to resume work activities was shorter for the laparoscopic group than for the open repair group (median, 23.0 days vs 28.5 days), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.28-1.04; P = .06). Overall recurrence at 2 years was 12.5% in the laparoscopic group and 8.2% in the open repair group (AOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.5-4.7; adjusted P = .44).
                Laparoscopic repair was associated with fewer, albeit more severe, complications and improved some patient-centered outcomes. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00240188.
There is evidence that the use of open mesh repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of recurrence of between 50% and 75%. Although the trials were heterogenous there is also some evidence of quicker return to work and of lower rates of persisting pain following mesh repair.