Purpose : The mesh technique of inguinal hernia repair has revealed encouraging results in groin hernia repair. However, there are few reports in Korea analyzing the clinical results of the mesh technique compared with the non-mesh method
of
inguinal hernia repair.
Methods : Information was assimilated from randomized trials comparing the mesh and non-mesh methods in order to assess both benefits and safety. The clinical results of the mesh technique (n=38) and the non-mesh method (n=33) were
compared.
The
clinical features analyzed were age, sex, location, type of hernia, surgical time, use of postoperative analgesics, length of hospital stay, complication and recurrence.
Results : There was no significant difference between the mesh technique and the non-mesh method on sex, age, location, type of hernia. The average operation time was significantly longer in the mesh group than the non-mesh group (P<0.01,
60.9
min vs 46.8 min). The average number of analgesics used was significantly smaller in the mesh group than the non-mesh group (P<0.01, 4.6 vs 8.2). The average duration of hospital stay was statistically shorter in the mesh group than the non-mesh
group
(P<0.01, 4.5 days vs 6.3 days). Postoperative complications were observed in only one case (hematoma) in the non-mesh group. Recurrence rate in the non-mesh group was 9% (3 cases), although there was no recurrence in a mesh group.
Conclusion : The mesh technique of inguinal hernia repair is a useful technique because it is less painful and causes a shorter hospital stay than the non-mesh method. In this study, we observed not a shortened surgical time and lower
recurrence
rate in the mesh group than in non-mesh.
|