| Abstrakt: |
Inguinal herniorrhaphy remains one of the most common surgical operations, with approximately 10 to 20 per cent performed for recurrence. Reviews by specialized hernia centers show mesh repair has a recurrence rate of 0.2 per cent. Detractors of this repair include increased cost, technical difficulty, and risk for infection. The purpose of this study was to compare mesh versus nonmesh inguinal herniorrhaphy at a large teaching institution. From 1985 to 1994, 892 patients underwent primary repair for inguinal hernia at the Veterans Administration Hospital at Memphis, TN. Patients were stratified by repair [Lichtenstein (Mesh), open anterior (Bassini, Marcy, McVay, and Shouldice), laparoscopic (Lap), and preperitoneal (Post)]. Operative time for Mesh repair (111 +/- 2 minutes) was longer than for Bassini or McVay (91 +/- 2 and 98 +/- 2 minutes; P < 0.05), and Lap repairs were longer than all others (192 +/- 16 minutes; P < 0.05). Hospital stay averaged 2.2 +/- 0.1 days for Mesh versus 2.6 +/- 0.1 days for all repairs combined (P = not significant). Mesh patients developed four wound infections (1.0%), none requiring mesh removal, versus nine infections (1.8%) in other groups (P = not significant). One Mesh patient (0.3%) developed recurrence, compared with 16 (3.5%) with open anterior repair (P < 0.01). Inguinal herniorrhaphy using an open mesh repair technique provides superior recurrence rates without increasing risk for infection, length of stay, or technical difficulty. |
