Volume 83, Issue 3 (June 2025)
Tehran Univ Med J 2025, 83(3): 160-169 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Razavi B M, Zarei T, Ahmadi Rashti S M S, Sayadinia M. Comparison of two methods prolene and ultralight prolene mesh in inguinal hernia repair: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial study. Tehran Univ Med J 2025; 83 (3) :160-169
URL: http://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-13545-en.html
URL: http://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-13545-en.html
1- Department of Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Management Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
2- Student Research Committee, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
3- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran. ,drsaiiadinia@gmail.com
2- Student Research Committee, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
3- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran. ,
Abstract: (530 Views)
Background: The use of mesh is considered one of the most effective methods and is considered the method of choice in hernia repair. However, the debate about the choice of mesh type still persists. Therefore, in the present study, the results of using ultra-light Prolene mesh with standard Prolene mesh in hernia repair surgery were compared.
Methods: The present study is a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial that was conducted at Shahid Mohammadi Hospital in Bandar Abbas. Demographic information including age, sex, height, and weight were recorded in a checklist. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Each group used Prolene mesh in the first group and ultra-light Prolene mesh in the second group for repair. Hernia repair was performed by the surgeon using the Lebakhstein method.
Results: 119 patients were included in the study. 70 patients (57.4%) had direct hernia and 52 patients (42.6%) had indirect hernia. The mean age of the Prolene group was 43.8±7.49 and the ultra-light Prolene group was 44.32±8.91 years (P=.713). The mean BMI in the Prolene group was 29.94±3.43 and in the ultra-light Parwan group was 29.66±3.76 (P=.673). Wound infection was not observed in either group. Chronic pain was 14.5 in the Prolene group and 10.3 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.490). Administrative retention was 6.3 in the Prolene group and 8.5 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.738). The recurrence rate 3 months after surgery was 0 in the Prolene group and 1 case (1.7%) in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.487). The recurrence rate 12 months after surgery was 2 cases (3.2%) in the Prolene group and 3 cases (5.2%) in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 672). The time to complete recovery was 6.94±1.63 days in the Prolene group and 6.68±1.64 days in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 368). There was no significant difference in pain intensity at 2, 6, and 24 hours after surgery between the two study groups.
Conclusion: Both Prolene and ultralight Prolene mesh have relatively similar efficacy in inguinal hernia repair. Although the advantages of ultralight Prolene mesh, such as pain intensity, chronic pain, and faster onset of motion, were slightly different in the ultralight Prolene group, the recurrence rate was slightly higher in the ultralight Prolene group.
Methods: The present study is a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial that was conducted at Shahid Mohammadi Hospital in Bandar Abbas. Demographic information including age, sex, height, and weight were recorded in a checklist. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Each group used Prolene mesh in the first group and ultra-light Prolene mesh in the second group for repair. Hernia repair was performed by the surgeon using the Lebakhstein method.
Results: 119 patients were included in the study. 70 patients (57.4%) had direct hernia and 52 patients (42.6%) had indirect hernia. The mean age of the Prolene group was 43.8±7.49 and the ultra-light Prolene group was 44.32±8.91 years (P=.713). The mean BMI in the Prolene group was 29.94±3.43 and in the ultra-light Parwan group was 29.66±3.76 (P=.673). Wound infection was not observed in either group. Chronic pain was 14.5 in the Prolene group and 10.3 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.490). Administrative retention was 6.3 in the Prolene group and 8.5 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.738). The recurrence rate 3 months after surgery was 0 in the Prolene group and 1 case (1.7%) in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.487). The recurrence rate 12 months after surgery was 2 cases (3.2%) in the Prolene group and 3 cases (5.2%) in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 672). The time to complete recovery was 6.94±1.63 days in the Prolene group and 6.68±1.64 days in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 368). There was no significant difference in pain intensity at 2, 6, and 24 hours after surgery between the two study groups.
Conclusion: Both Prolene and ultralight Prolene mesh have relatively similar efficacy in inguinal hernia repair. Although the advantages of ultralight Prolene mesh, such as pain intensity, chronic pain, and faster onset of motion, were slightly different in the ultralight Prolene group, the recurrence rate was slightly higher in the ultralight Prolene group.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
