International Journal of Surgery 12 (2014) 1380e1384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Surgery

journal homepage: www.journal-surgery.net

Original research

Standard polypropylene mesh vs lightweight mesh for Lichtenstein

repair of primary inguinal hernia: A randomized controlled trial
Zaza Demetrashvili a, b, *, Kakhi Khutsishvili b, Irakli Pipia b, Giorgi Kenchadze b,
Eka Ekaladze c
a
Department of Surgery of Tbilisi State Medical University, 33, Vazha-Pshavela ave., 0177 Tbilisi, Georgia
b
Department of General Surgery of Kipshidze Central University Hospital, 29, Vazha-Pshavela ave., 0160 Tbilisi, Georgia
c
Department of Biochemistry of Tbilisi State Medical University, 33, Vazha-Pshavela ave., 0177 Tbilisi, Georgia

h i g h l i g h t s

During Lichtenstein with polypropylene mesh, the worst characteristics can be chronic pain.

In order to prevent such kind of difficulties, the usage of lightweight mesh is recommended.

The usage of the LW mesh was associated with less feeling of foreign body than that of the HW mesh.

Thepoint listed above can be considered as an advantage of LW mesh rather than HW mesh.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Purpose: The aim of the present clinical study was to compare early and late outcomes after inguinal
Received 4 August 2014 hernia repair with the heavyweight mesh (HW) and lightweight mesh (LW) during a 3 year follow-up
Received in revised form period. Methods: 226 patients were randomized into LW and HW mesh groups, both of which under-
13 October 2014
went unilateral primary inguinal hernia repair via the Lichtenstein technique. Wound complications
Accepted 25 October 2014
Available online 28 October 2014
(infection, hematoma, seroma), hernia recurrence, pain and feeling of foreign body in inguinal area were
determined in patients. Pain was measured by visual analogue scale. Results: No statistical difference has
been found between LW and HW groups by wound complication (P ¼ 0.80). One case of hernia recur-
Keywords:
Lightweight mesh
rence has been mentioned in both groups one year after hernioplasty. But there was no detectable
Heavyweight mesh difference between the two groups. No significant difference has been found between LW and HW
Lichtenstein groups by frequency of chronic pain 7 days, 1 and 3 months, 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery. As for the
Inguinal hernia feeling of foreign body in groin it is similar in both groups after 1 and 3 months. Level of feeling of foreign
body was significantly lower in LW group 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery, than in HW group (P ¼ 0.03,
P ¼ 0.02, P ¼ 0.02, respectively). Conclusion: Our research shows no significant difference in wound
complications, hernia recurrence and chronic pain after Lichtenstein hernioplasty, by using of LW and
HW meshes. The usage of the LW mesh was associated with less feeling of foreign body than that of the
HW mesh, what can be considered as prevalence of LW mesh hernioplasty.
© 2014 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Lichtenstein method is one of the most popular techniques [1].

Usage of prosthetic materials decreased the frequency of hernia
Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed recurrence, although the chronic pain and feeling of a foreign body
operations in general surgery. Tension-free mesh repair currently is in inguinal area after surgery is still considerable problem e it
the gold standard in inguinal hernia surgery. Currently the worsens the level of patients' quality of life [2e4].
The incidence of chronic pain after inguinal hernioplasty varies
from 9 to 52% and the feeling of a foreign body occurs in around 40%
* Corresponding author. Department of Surgery of Tbilisi State Medical Univer- of patients [3,5,6]. The pain may be caused by damage to the
sity, 33, Vazha-Pshavela ave., 0177 Tbilisi, Georgia. inguinal nerves, but these complications may be due to the foreign
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Demetrashvili), kkhutsishvili1972@ body reaction against the mesh which results in an inflammatory
yahoo.com (K. Khutsishvili), [email protected] (I. Pipia), [email protected]
response and scar tissue formation [5,7]. The reaction on foreign
(G. Kenchadze), [email protected] (E. Ekaladze).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.025
1743-9191/© 2014 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Z. Demetrashvili et al. / International Journal of Surgery 12 (2014) 1380e1384 1381

body is depend on the type and volume, as well as the size of pores hernia recurrence. Pain scores were measured on a Visual Analogue
and web-structure of synthetic prosthesis. Taking into consider- Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain).
ation this fact, nowadays partially absorbable lightweight meshes After discharge from the hospital, all patients were examined
(LW) are being used instead of heavyweight polypropylene meshes after 1 week, 15 days, and 1 month at the outpatient department by
(HW). Low mass, decreased content of foreign body and large pores the same surgeon who performed the operation. Also, these pa-
are characteristic for LW [8e10]. tients were examined 3 month, 1, 2, and 3 years after the operation
According to the current researches usage of LW meshes for date. The examinations were performed by surgeons who had not
inguinal hernioplasty decreases the frequency of chronic pain been participating previously in this study. They were paying
[11e13], at the same time several articles don't confirm the fact attention to the pain in the inguinal region, to the feeling of a
[14,15]. It's worth mentioning, that the risk of hernia recurrence foreign body and the presence of hernia recurrence. The pain
might be increased in case of using LW meshes [16]. questionnaire included questions regarding pain at rest, on
The aim of the present clinical study was to compare early and coughing, while climbing steps and during physical activity.
late outcomes after inguinal hernia repair via the Lichtenstein
technique with the heavyweight mesh (HW) and lightweight mesh 3. Statistical methods
(LW) during a 3 year follow-up period.
Descriptive statistics methods were used to characterize each
2. Methods variable. Comparison of continuous variables was performed by
independent samples t-test or the ManneWhitney U test according
From January 2008 to April 2011 patients over 18 years of age to the normality of the variables. Categorical variables were eval-
who underwent elective surgery for unilateral primary inguinal uated by two-tailed Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test where
hernia via the Lichtenstein technique were enrolled in the study. appropriate. The threshold for statistical significance was set to
The patients were operated at the General Surgery Department of P < 0.05. Statistical tests were performed by SPSS 16.00 (SPSS Inc.,
Kiphshidze Central University Hospital. The inclusion criteria were Chicago, IL).
a unilateral primary inguinal hernia requiring operative treatment
and patient's approval to participate in the study. The exclusion 4. Results
criteria were bilateral hernia, irreducible hernia, recurrent hernia,
strangulated hernia, a patient's preference for either mesh type, or From January 2008 to April 2011, 328 patients underwent
a patient's refusal to participate in the study. The basic principle for inguinal hernia repair via Lichtenstein technique. Among these
this study was one unit, one surgeon trained in the standard patients, 226 were randomized in two groups equally (113 patients
Lichtenstein technique and the use of LW and HW meshes. The in each group). All of these patients underwent the allocated op-
patients were assigned to one of the two groups: the LW group or erations. Information about 28 patients was lost during the time
the HW group. The randomization (by simple random sampling) of observation: among them e 19 patients were not coming for ex-
patients to each of the two groups described above was done before amination, 7 patients were died during observation period (the
the surgical intervention. The assignment of patients to the specific causes of death were all non-hernia surgery related), in 2 patients
groups was performed by the clinical manager not involved in the developed recurrence of hernia. Subsequently 102 patients from
surgical procedures. The study participants were blinded regarding HW group and 96 e from LW group were consecutively examined
the type of the mesh used in the surgical intervention. The Lich- during 3 years after surgical operation. The data of this investiga-
tenstein hernioplasty was performed according to the original tion is analyzed on this article (Fig. 1).
description of the technique [17]. The nerves in inguinal canal were Both groups were similar by preoperative (sex, age, body mass
identified and preserved when possible. In the HW group, a index, tobacco use, American Society of Anesthesiologists risk
monofilament polypropylene mesh with a weight of 82 g/m2 and groups, comorbidities, site of hernia, and occupation) and intra-
pore size 0.8 mm (Prolene, Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey) was operative (type of hernia, anesthesia, prophylactic antibiotics, and
used. The LW mesh in this study was Ultrapro (Ultrapro, Ethicon, operation time) factors. No statistically significant differences were
Somerville, New Jersey), a large pore composite mesh (poly- found between the groups by these factors (Table 1, Table 2).
propylene and poliglecaprone, Monocril) (weight ¼ 28 g/m2, pore Regarding the postoperative data, no statistical difference has
size 3 mm). In both groups, 8  12 cm mesh was applied. Poly- been found (P ¼ 0.35) between groups by postoperative time spent
propylene 2/0 monofilament suture material was used for mesh at the ward (hospital stay), and by sick-leave days (P ¼ 0.15). In the
implantation. LW group, 8 early complications (wound infection, hematoma,
Several preoperative factors were studied, which included sex, seroma) were observed (8.3%), in the HW group e 10 early com-
age, body mass index, occupation, tobacco use, risk groups by plications (9.8%). The difference did not statistical significant
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and comorbidities, and (P ¼ 0.80). One case of hernia recurrence was marked in each group
site of hernia. Patients with ASA groups 4 and 5 were excluded from after 1 year of surgery. But there was no detectable difference be-
the study. tween the two groups (Table 3).
Among the intraoperative factors, the following were evaluated: As for frequency of inguinal pain the difference was not statis-
type of hernia, anesthesia method (local, general), and duration of tically significant between LW and HW groups 7 days, 1 and 3
the operation. Prophylactic antibiotics were not used in all patients. month and 1, 2 and 3 years after surgery. There was no detectable
We were using it only in patients with concurrent disorders. In difference between the two groups according to average VAS scores
these instances, 1.5 g cefuroxime was used intravenously 30 min too (Table 4).
before the operation. The difference was not statistically detectable between LW and
Among the postoperative data, the following were studied: HW groups concerning the feeling of a foreign body 7 days, 1 and 3
postoperative days at the ward (hospital stay), sick-leave days, and months after operation. Statistical significant difference (P ¼ 0.03)
complications. The latter were divided into two groups: early and was found in the data of feeling of a foreign body 1 year after
late complications. The early complications included wound surgery: the symptom was mentioned in 6 (6.3%) patients in LW
infection, hematoma, and seroma. The late complications included group and 17 (16.7%) patients in HW group. 2 years after surgery
chronic pain in the inguinal region, the feeling of a foreign body and the same symptom was detected in 2 (2.1%) patients in LW group
1382 Z. Demetrashvili et al. / International Journal of Surgery 12 (2014) 1380e1384

Fig. 1. Study flow chart. A randomized trial of lightweight vs. heavyweight mesh in Lichtenstein primary inguinal hernia repair.

and 11 (10.8%) e in HW group e difference is statistical significant recurrence between LW and HW mesh in inguinal hernia repair
(P ¼ 0.02). 3 years after surgery the feeling of a foreign body was [13,23,24,27,28]. It's worth to mention the work of O'Dwyer et al.
marked in 1 (1.05%) patient in LW group and 9 (9.4%) in HW group e [29], where hernia recurrence was statistically significantly higher
difference is statistical significant (P ¼ 0.02) (Table 5). in LW group compared to HW group. The authors don't correlate
the increase of frequency of recurrence of the type of mesh. Ac-
5. Discussion cording to their opinion the cause of this difference is technical
errors of mesh fixation. We think particular attention have to paid
A tension-free operation with mesh has become the standard to lightweight mesh fixation to avoid hernia recurrence in Lich-
technique for inguinal hernia surgery [1]. According to the scientific tenstein hernioplasty. We completely agree the authors' opinion
literature the frequency of hernia recurrence is considerably low about three additional modification of LW mesh fixation to be
after mesh repair [1,2,18,19]. Although chronic pain and feeling of a considered during Lichtenstein hernioplasty [25,27,29]. Importance
foreign body in inguinal area is the main problems of mesh repair of lightweight mesh fixation for prevention of hernia recurrence is
surgery. These complications significantly effect on the quality of emphasized also in European Hernia Society guidelines update
patients life [3e6,12,20]. Several investigators confirm that the [30].
main reasons of these complications are the reaction of organism Chronic pain is one of the most serious long-term complications
on a foreign body (polypropylene). Thus, a lightweight mesh with a following groin hernia repair [1,3,5,6,20,30]. No statistical differ-
reduced weight of non-absorbable components has been devel- ence has been found between LW and HW groups by chronic pain 1,
oped to minimize foreign body reactions after surgery [7e10,21]. 2, and 3 years after surgery. Several scientific articles confirm our
The purpose of our clinical study was to evaluate the outcomes result [14,15,25,26]. Otherwise some scientific results show the
of Lichtenstein hernioplasty by using light and heavy weight chronic pain is significantly decreased in LW group
meshes and to compare them to the results of analogs researches. [11e13,16,22e24,28,29]. According to the European Hernia Society
According to our research frequency of early postoperative guidelines on treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients, the risk
complications (infection, hematoma, seroma) in both groups were factors for chronic pain are preoperative pain, younger age and
the same. These results are in accordance to other investigations severe early postoperative pain [1]. We mentioned an interesting
[13,22e24]. fact: acute severe pain was observed on 7th day after surgery in
There was no detectable difference by of hernia recurrence be- patients of both groups who 1, 2 or 3 years after hernioplasty had
tween the two groups. Our results did not differ from results of chronic pain.
other investigations [11,14,15,25,26]. Different kinds of meta- Based on our results the feeling of a foreign body in groin is
analysis found no statistical difference in overall hernia similar in both groups after 1 and 3 month. Significant decrease of
 Z. Demetrashvili et al. / International Journal of Surgery 12 (2014) 1380e1384 1383

Table 1 Table 4
Preoperative factors in two treatment groups. Pain and visual analogue scale (VAS) at follow-up.

Characteristics Lightweight mesh Heavyweight mesh P Value Characteristics Lightweight mesh Heavyweight mesh P Value

(n ¼ 96) (n ¼ 102) (n ¼ 96) (n ¼ 102

Sex 7 days
Male 90 92 0.44 Pain 13(13.5) 17(16.7) 0.56
Female 6 10 VAS 3.2 ± 2.3 3 ± 1.7 0.84
Age (years) 54.7(14.3) 51.3 (17.5) 0.14 1 month
BMI, kg/m2 24.4(1.7) 24.6(1.8) 0.42 Pain 12(12.5) 15(14.7) 0.68
Site of hernia VAS 3.2 ± 1.8 2.6 ± 1.3 0.37
Right 56 64 0.56 3 month
Left 40 38 Pain 10(10.4) 12(11.8) 0.82
Comorbidities VAS 2.5 ± 1.4 2.4 ± 1.3 0.82
Cardiovascular 11 10 0.82 1 year
Respiratory system 4 5 0.75 Pain 6(6.3) 9(8.8) 0.60
Diabetes 3 5 0.72 VAS 2.2 ± 1.2 2.4 ± 1.4 0.70
ASA risk group 2 year
1 36 42 0.67 Pain 3(3.1) 6(5.9) 0.50
2 50 54 0.67 VAS 2.3 ± 1.5 2.5 ± 1.1 0.85
3 10 6 0.30 3 year
Current smoker 41 47 0.74 Pain 2(2.1) 5(4.9) 0.45
Occupation Vas 2 ± 1.4 2.4 ± 1.1 0.71
Light work 54 48 0.25
VAS e Visual Analogue Scale.
Physical work 42 54
Data are expressed as absolute number of patients (%) or as mean and SD.
ASA e American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI e Body mass index.
Data are expressed as mean (SD) or absolute number of patients (%).
Table 5
Identifying feeling of foreign body.
Table 2
Characteristics Lightweight mesh Heavyweight mesh P Value
Intraoperative factors in two treatment groups.
(n ¼ 96) (n ¼ 102)
Characteristics Lightweight mesh Heavyweight mesh P Value
Feeling of foreign body
(n ¼ 96) (n ¼ 102) 7 days 33(34.4) 30(29.4) 0.54
Type of hernia 1 month 24(25) 27(26.5) 0.87
Indirect 62(64.6) 71(69.6) 0.54 3 month 19(19.8) 23(22.5) 0.73
Direct 30(31.3) 27(26.5) 0.53 1 year 6(6.3) 17(16.7) 0.03
Combined 4(4.1) 4(3.9) 0.99 2 year 2(2.1) 11(10.8) 0.02
Anesthesia 3 year 1(1.05) 9(9.4) 0.02
Local 76 78 0.73 Data are expressed as absolute number of patients (%).
General 20 24
Prophylactic antibiotic 28 26 0.63
Operation time, min. 58.7(13.3) 61.2(9.9) 0.13
body than that of the HW mesh. That can be considered as an
Data are expressed as mean (SD) or absolute number of patients (%). advantage of LW mesh rather than HW mesh.

Ethical approval
Table 3
Surgical outcomes in two treatment groups.
None.
Characteristics Lightweight mesh Heavyweight mesh P Value

(n ¼ 96) (n ¼ 102) Sources of funding

Hospital stay (days) 1.4(0.8) 1.5(0.7) 0.35
Sick leave (days) 8.4(2.1) 8.8(1.8) 0.15 None.
Primary complication 8 10 0.80
Wound infection 3 3 1.0
Hematoma 1 1 1.0 Author contribution
Seroma 4 6 0.75
Recurrence 1(1.04) 1(0.98) 0.99 Zaza Demetrashvili participated in the design and coordination
Data are expressed as mean (SD) or absolute number of patients (%). of the study, collected the data, analysed the data, carried out the
statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. Kakhi Khutsishvili,
Irakli Pipia, Giorgi Kenchadze and Eka Ekaladze developed the
the symptom has been found is in LW group 1, 2 or 3 years after literature search, collected the data and assisted in writing up. All
surgery (P ¼ 0.03, P ¼ 0.02, P ¼ 0.02, respectively). Several in- authors read and approved the final manuscript.
vestigations confirm our results underlining the prevalence of
lightweight mesh concerning feeling of a foreign body Conflicts of interest
[11,13,16,22e28], but work of Nikkolo et al. [15] shows no difference
in this indicator between compared groups. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
In conclusion, based on our observational study comparison of
LW and HW meshes usage in Lichtenstein hernioplasty in primary Acknowledgments
inguinal hernia, indicated no significant difference in terms of
wound complications, hernia recurrence and chronic pain. The We are thankful to Dr George Kamkamidze for the help he
usage of the LW mesh was associated with less feeling of foreign provided during the writing of the article.
1384 Z. Demetrashvili et al. / International Journal of Surgery 12 (2014) 1380e1384

References comparison of different implant constructions based on critical appraisal of

the literature, World J. Surg. 31 (2007) 234e244.
[17] I.L. Lichtenstein, A.G. Schulman, P.K. Amid, M.M. Montllor, The tension-free
[1] M.P. Simons, T. Aufenacker, M. Bay-Nielsen, J.L. Bouillot, G. Campanelli,
hernioplasty, Am. J. Surg. 157 (1989) 188e193.
J. Conze, et al., European hernia society guidelines on the treatment of
[18] N.W. Scott, K. McCormack, P. Graham, P.M. Go, S.J. Ross, A.M. Grant, Open
inguinal hernia in adult patients, Hernia 13 (2009) 343e403.
mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia, Cochrane
[2] EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration, Mesh compared with non-mesh methods of
Database Syst. Rev. 4 (2002) CD002197.
groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized control trials, Br. J. Surg.
[19] R.N. van Veen, A.R. Wijsmuller, W.W. Wrijland, W.C. Hop, J.F. Lange, J. Jeekel,
87 (2000) 854e859.
Long-term follow-up of randomized clinical trial of non-mesh versus mesh
[3] H. Kehlet, M. Bay-Nielsen, Danish Hernia Database Collaboration, Nationwide
repair of primary inguinal hernia, Br. J. Surg. 94 (2007) 506e510.
quality improvement of groin hernia repair from the Danish Hernia database
[20] S. Bringman, J. Conze, D. Cuccurullo, J. Deprest, K. Junge, B. Klosterhalfen, et al.,
of 87840 patients from 1998 to 2005, Hernia 12 (2008) 1e7.
Hernia repair: the search for ideal meshes, Hernia 14 (2010) 81e87.
[4] S. Massaron, S. Bona, U. Fumagalli, P. Valente, R. Rosati, Long-term sequele
[21] S.B. Orenstein, E.R. Saberski, D.L. Kreutzer, Y.W. Novitsky, Comparative anal-
after 1311 primary inguinal hernia repairs, Hernia 12 (2008) 57e63.
ysis of histopathologic effects of synthetic meshes based on material, weight
[5] S. Alfieri, P.K. Amid, G. Campanelli, G. Izard, H. Kehlet, A.R. Wijsmuller, et al.,
and pore size in mice, J. Surg. Res. 176 (2012) 423e429.
International guidelines for prevention and management of post-operative
[22] S. Post, B. Weiss, M. Willer, T. Neufang, D. Lorenz, Randomized clinical trial of
chronic pain following inguinal hernia surgery, Hernia 15 (2011) 239e249.
lightweight composite mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair, Br. J. Surg.
[6] H. Paajanen, T. Scheinin, J. Vironen, Commentary: nationwide analysis of
91 (2004) 44e48.
complications related to inguinal hernia surgery in Finland: a 5 year register
[23] C. Zhong, B. Wu, Z. Yang, X. Deng, J. Kang, B. Guo, Y. Fan, A meta-analysis
study of 55,000 operations, Am. J. Surg. 199 (2010) 746e751.
comparing lightweight meshes with heavyweight meshes in Lichtenstein
[7] U. Klinge, B. Klosterhalfen, M. Muller, V. Schumpelick, Foreign body reaction to
inguinal hernia repair, Surg. Innov. 20 (2013) 24e31.
meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias, Eur. J. Surg. 165 (1999)
[24] M.M. Uzzaman, K. Ratnasingham, N. Ashraf, Meta-analysis of randomized
665e673.
controlled trials comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh of Lichten-
[8] K. Junge, U. Klinge, R. Rosch, B. Klosterhalfen, V. Schumpelick, Functional and
stein inguinal hernia repair, Hernia 16 (2012) 505e518.
morphologic properties of modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair, World J.
[25] K. Bury, M. Smietanski, Polish Hernia Study Group, Five-year results of ran-
Surg. 26 (2002) 1472e1480.
domized clinical trial comparing a polypropylene mesh with a poliglecaprone
[9] U. Klinge, J.K. Park, B. Klosterhalfen, The ideal mesh? Pathobiology 80 (2013)
and polypropylene composite mesh for inguinal hernioplasty, Hernia 16
169e175.
(2012) 549e553.
[10] W.S. Cobb, K.W. Kercher, B.T. Heniford, The argument for lightweight poly-
[26] A. Yazdankhah Kenary, S.N. Afshin, H. Ahmad Amoli, A. Yagoobi Notash,
propylene mesh in hernia repair, Surg. Innov. 12 (2005) 63e69.
A. Barjian, A. Yagoobi Notash Jr., et al., Randomized control trial comparing
[11] S. Bringman, S. Wollert, J. Osterberg, S. Smedberg, H. Granuland,
lightweight mesh with heavyweight mesh for primary inguinal repair, Hernia
T.J. Heikkinen, Three-year results of a randomized clinical trial of lightweight
17 (2013) 471e477.
or standard polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal
[27] M. Smietanski, I.A. Smietanska, A. Modrzejewski, M.P. Simons, T.J. Aufenacker,
hernia, Br. J. Surg. 93 (2006) 1056e1059.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of heavy and lightweight polypropylene
[12] S. Nienhuijs, E. Staal, L. Strobbe, C. Rosman, H. Groenewoud, R. Bleichrodt,
mesh in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty, Hernia 16 (2012) 519e528.
Chronic pain after mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review, Am. J.
[28] M.S. Sajid, C. Leaver, M.K. Baig, P. Sains, Systematic review and meta-analysis
Surg. 194 (2007) 394e400.
of the use of lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia
[13] J. Li, Z. Ji, T. Cheng, Lightweight versus heavyweight in inguinal hernia repair:
repair, Br. J. Surg. 99 (2012) 29e37.
a meta-analysis, Hernia 16 (2012) 529e539.
[29] P.J. O'Dwyer, A.N. Kingsnorth, R.G. Molloy, P.K. Small, B. Lammers,
[14] H. Paajanen, A Single-surgeon randomized trial comparing three composite
G. Horeyseck, Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of lightweight or
meshes on chronic pain after Lichtenstein hernia repair in local anesthesia,
heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair, Br. J. Surg. 92
Hernia 11 (2007) 335e339.
(2005) 166e170.
[15] C. Nikkolo, M. Murruste, T. Vaasna, H. Seepter, T. Tikk, U. Lepner, Three-year
[30] M. Miserez, E. Peeters, T. Aufenacker, J.L. Bouillot, G. Campanelli, J. Conze, et
results of randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh with heavy-
al., Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia society guidelines on
weight mesh for inguinal hernioplasty, Hernia 16 (2012) 555e559.
the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients, Hernia 18 (2014) 151e163.
[16] D. Weyhe, O. Belyaev, C. Muller, K. Meurer, K.H. Bauer, G. Papapostolou,
W. Uhl, Improving outcomes in hernia repair by the use light meshes e a