Chatree Maimun, MD, Sarrath Sutthipong, MD, Poschong Suesat, MD, Petch Kasetsuwan, Panot Yimcharoen, MD. Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the recurrence rate between slit mesh and non-slit Prolene mesh in laparoscopic totally extra peritoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair.
Materials and methods: Ninety-five patients were diagnosed with inguinal hernia in our institute, they underwent laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair were retrospectively reviewed. The characteristic of patient included demographic data, length of stay, follow-up time and recurrence symptoms were reviewed and interviewed. They were divided into two groups. The first group was the patients who underwent laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with non-slit Prolene mesh, the second were the patients who underwent surgery with slit Prolene mesh.
Results: From January 2009 to December 2013, 95 patients (89 M, 6 F) underwent laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair. There were 38 patients (37 M, 1 F) in the first group with the mean age of 61.6+16.0 years (17-81), 16 patients were unilateral and the rest were bilateral hernia. There were 57 patients (52 M, 5 F) in the second group with the mean age of 63.2 +14.6 years (33-84), 41 patients were unilateral, and the rest were bilateral hernia. The recurrence rate of the first group (non-slit mesh) was 3 in 38 patients (7.89%) with mean follow up time 28.7 +10.6 months (10-64) and the another group (slit mesh) was 3 in 57 patients (5.26%) with mean follow up time 19.0+5.2 months (9-28). The length of stay was 5.5+1.9 days (3-13) in first group and 4.7+1.9 days (3-13) in the second. There was no difference of the recurrence rate (p = 0.605) in both groups.
Conclusions: There is no statistical significance difference between both groups in the recurrence rate post laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair. However better study design and long term follow up in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is expected.