REVIEW

J. Abdom. Wall Surg., 13 April 2023

Volume 2 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/jaws.2023.11179

Definition of Mesh Weight and Pore Size in Groin Hernia Repair: A Systematic Scoping Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

  • Centre for Perioperative Optimisation, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Article metrics

11

Citations

8,6k

Views

1,8k

Downloads

Abstract

Introduction: Groin hernia literature often uses the terms light- and heavyweight and small or large pores to describe meshes. There is no universal definition of these terms, and the aim of this scoping review was to assess how mesh weight and pore sizes are defined in the groin hernia literature.

Methods: In this systematic scoping review, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included randomised controlled trials with adults undergoing groin hernia repair with the Lichtenstein or laparoscopic techniques using a flat permanent polypropylene or polyester mesh. Studies had to use the terms lightweight, mediumweight, or heavyweight to be included, and the outcome was to report how researchers defined these terms as well as pore sizes.

Results: We included 48 studies with unique populations. The weight of lightweight meshes ranged from 28 to 60 g/m2 with a median of 39 g/m2, and the pore size ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 mm with a median of 1.6 mm. The weight of heavyweight meshes ranged from 72 to 116 g/m2 with a median of 88 g/m2, and the pore size ranged from 0.08 to 1.8 mm with a median of 1.0 mm. Only one mediumweight mesh was used weighing 55 g/m2 with a pore size of 0.75 mm.

Conclusion: There seems to be a consensus that meshes weighing less than 60 g/m2 are defined as lightweight and meshes weighing more than 70 g/m2 are defined as heavyweight. The weight terms were used independently of pore sizes, which slightly overlapped between lightweight and heavyweight meshes.

Introduction

The standard treatment for symptomatic groin hernia is mesh repair (1). The rationale for using a mesh is the lower risk of recurrence compared with non-mesh repair (1), and the long-term reoperation rate is reported to be around 5% for mesh repairs (2). Despite the concern that meshes might introduce groin pain, a systematic review has shown that there is no difference in the risk of chronic pain regardless of repairing inguinal hernias with or without mesh (3). Therefore, the recommended and most used techniques are the Lichtenstein repair and the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and total extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques (1).

Today, there are many different meshes on the market, but the most used is a permanent flat polypropylene mesh (1). The terms lightweight, mediumweight, and heavyweight together with large and small porous have been used for many years to describe a mesh. Generally, a lightweight mesh has large pore size with less weight, whereas a heavyweight mesh has small pore size with more weight (1). Interestingly, systematic reviews have shown a lower risk of chronic pain when using a lightweight mesh in Lichtenstein repair (4) and a lower risk of recurrence when using a heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic repair (5). However, there is no clear definition of what the definition of a lightweight and heavyweight mesh is (1).

Due to the lack of agreement on mesh weight definitions, this systematic scoping review aimed to map how researchers conducting randomised controlled trials (RCT) on patients with groin hernias have defined lightweight, mediumweight, and heavyweight meshes in terms of areal weight and pore sizes.

Methods

This systematic scoping review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guideline (6). The protocol was registered at Open Science Framework (OSF) before data extraction was initiated (7).

The eligibility criteria were studies including participants minimum 18 years old undergoing groin hernia repair with a mesh using the Lichtenstein, TAPP, or TEP techniques. The mesh had to be flat and made of permanent polypropylene or polyester, and simple flat meshes are the most commonly used mesh type (1). And the studies had to use the terms lightweight, mediumweight, or heavyweight when describing the mesh. The outcome of this systematic scoping review was to report researchers’ definitions of light-, medium-, and heavyweight meshes. To define the mesh weight, we focused on areal weight in g/m2, but other definitions of weight were also considered. Furthermore, pore sizes were also included in studies where the weight was defined. An additional outcome was to report how many studies had used light-, medium-, and heavyweight meshes when repairing with the Lichtenstein, TAPP, or TEP techniques. We excluded studies that used meshes of other shapes than simple flat, such as special firm borders, 3D shapes, and self-gripping or adhesive meshes. If studies only mentioned using a light-, medium-, or heavyweight mesh but without further specifying the weight, the manufacturer’s website was searched to retrieve these data. We excluded studies if they failed to mention the term “weight.” We also excluded studies if the areal weight was insufficiently described in the study and it could not be found on the website of the manufacturer, regardless of whether they had reported the pore size or not. Studies that included other repairs than inguinal- or femoral hernia repairs or other meshes than flat polypropylene or polyester meshes were included if the results were separately presented for the eligible patients. Finally, only published randomised controlled trials written in English were included.

A search strategy was first created in PubMed with the help of an information specialist. This search strategy was later converted to the databases Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. All searches were conducted on 19 August 2022. We also performed a snowball search by studying the reference lists of the included studies (8), and studies that seemed relevant were full text screened according to the eligibility criteria. The search strategy in PubMed was: “(femoral OR inguinal OR groin OR lateral OR medial OR pantaloon OR indirect OR direct) AND (hernia OR hernia [MeSH Terms]) AND (“randomized control trial” [Title/Abstract] OR “controlled clinical trial” [Title/Abstract] OR “randomized” [Title/Abstract] OR “randomised” [Title/Abstract] OR “RCT” [Title/Abstract] OR “trial” [Title/Abstract]).” After conducting the searches, studies were imported to the reference software Mendeley1 where duplicates were removed. The studies were screened using the software Covidence2, which also removed further duplicates. Both the screening of titles and abstracts and of full text papers were done by two authors independently. If there were any disagreement, it was resolved by discussion within the author group. If needed, study authors were contacted by e-mail twice for data clarity.

Data were first extracted for five studies to a pilot Excel spreadsheet by the first author. The pilot sheet was discussed within the author group, and after agreement on the final spreadsheet, the first author extracted data uniformly for all studies. The extracted data were first author, year of publication, number of eligible patients, type of groin hernia repair, type of groin hernia (inguinal or femoral), whether the mesh was defined as light-, medium-, or heavyweight, and mesh details such as weight in g/m2, pore size, and mesh size. Categorical data were presented with numbers and percentages, and continuous data were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR) and range. Pore sizes reported in mm2 were calculated to diameter in mm based on the formula to calculate the area of a circle and isolation of radius; “A = π·r2”.

Results

Study selection is illustrated in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). We identified 8,059 records, and 1,054 of these were full text screened. Finally, 59 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria (9–67). Of these studies, 11 had reused the patient population (57–67), which resulted in 48 studies with a unique population (9–56). Thus, only data from these 48 studies are presented in the following.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA) flow diagram. n: number.

Study characteristics are presented in Table 1. The 48 randomised controlled trials (9–67) were published between 2003 and 2021. Thirty-seven studies used the Lichtenstein repair (10–29, 31, 32, 34–39, 43–46, 50–53, 55) and 12 studies used laparoscopic repairs (9, 28, 30, 33, 40–42, 48–49, 54, 56). Of these 12 studies, six used TEP repair (28, 33, 40–42, 54), four used TAPP repair (30, 48, 49, 56), and two studies used TEP and TAPP repairs (10, 47). Two of the 48 studies included patients with groin hernias (17, 41), and the remaining studies only included inguinal hernias. One study used a polyester mesh (13) while the remaining 47 studies used meshes made of polypropylene. Nine of the studies used two meshes (48–56), resulting in 48 studies mentioning mesh weight for 57 meshes. Of these 58 meshes, 26 were by the authors defined as lightweight meshes (9–28, 50–55), 30 as heavyweight meshes (29–56), and one as a mediumweight mesh (56). Even though three studies did not use the term heavyweight, we interpreted it as heavyweight since two studies described the mesh as conventional densely woven (46, 50) and one as non-lightweight with a high areal weight (42). The one study that defined their mesh as mediumweight had a weight of 55 g/m2 and a pore size of 0.75 mm (56).

TABLE 1

RefStudy characteristicsMesh characteristicsBrand
YearPatientsaHerniaRepair typeMeshWeight (g/m2)Pore (mm)Size (cm)
(9)2016140InguinalTEP/TAPPLW30–45> 210 x 15Prolene soft
(10)202120InguinalLichtensteinLW44NRNRProlene
(11)201770InguinalLichtensteinLW361NROptilene LP
(12)2017170InguinalLichtensteinLW46NRNRParietex
(13)2017370InguinalLichtensteinLW60NR7.5 x 15Optilene
(14)201663InguinalLichtensteinLW363.0–44.5 x 10Optilene LP
(15)2016258InguinalLichtensteinLW38NRNRParietene Light
(16)2016151GroinLichtensteinLW53.7NRNRParietene Light
(17)2015216InguinalLichtensteinLW60NR9 x 13Optilene
(18)201575InguinalLichtensteinLW3616 x 14Optilene LP
(19)2014287InguinalLichtensteinLW38NRNRParietene Light
(20)201470InguinalLichtensteinLW3614.5 x 10Optilene LP
(21)2013159InguinalLichtensteinLWNRNR6 x 13.7Soft mesh, Bard
(22)201380InguinalLichtensteinLW48NRNREvolution P3EM
(23)2012196InguinalLichtensteinLW351.610 x 15Prolene
(24)2012153InguinalLichtensteinLW<40NRNRParietene Light
(25)2012110InguinalLichtensteinLW52NR7.5 x 15ProLite-Ultra
(26)2011302InguinalLichtensteinLW60NR9 x 13Optilene
(27)2011110InguinalLichtensteinLW38NRNRSurgimesh WN
(28)2020176InguinalLichtenstein/TEPLW381.610 x 15Parietene Light
(29)202043InguinalLichtensteinHW80–85NR6 x 12Prolene
(30)202054InguinalTAPPHW>75NR10 x 15NR
(31)2018197InguinalLichtensteinHW90NRNRBard Flatmesh
(32)201725InguinalLichtensteinHW100NRNRMarlex
(33)2015454InguinalTEPHW800.8–1.210 x 15Prolene
(34)2014113InguinalLichtensteinHW820.88 x 12Prolene
(35)201425InguinalLichtensteinHW85NR10 x 15Prolene
(36)201376InguinalLichtensteinHW1001NRNR
(37)2012300InguinalLichtensteinHW>80NRNRProlene
(38)201134InguinalLichtensteinHW10018 x 15NR
(39)201116InguinalLichtensteinHW1050.82NRProlene
(40)201020InguinalTEPHW95113 x 15Marlex
(41)2010211GroinTEPHW1050.8-112 x 15Prolene
(42)201040InguinalTEPHW80NR10 x 15Hi-Trex
(43)2008161InguinalLichtensteinHW>80NR10 x 15Prolene
(44)2006301InguinalLichtensteinHW>80NR7.5 x 15Prolene
(45)2005159InguinalLichtensteinHW851NRProlene
(46)200448InguinalLichtensteinHW100–110NR8 x 13Atrium
(47)2013149InguinalTEP/TAPPHW80–85NR10 x 15Prolene
(48)2008120InguinalTAPPHW1081.0–1.610 x 15Prolene
HW1160.08–0.110 x 15Serapen
(49)200340InguinalTAPPHW1081.0–1.6NRProlene
HW1160.8–1.0Serapen
(50)2007153InguinalLichtensteinLW55NRNRPremilene Mesh LP
HW82Premilene
(51)201758InguinalLichtensteinLW43.72.87 x 15Bard Davol
HW105.40.847 x 15Bard Davol
(52)2013110InguinalLichtensteinLW362.67.5 x 15Dynamesh
HW721.87.5 x 15Dynamesh
(53)2010135InguinalLichtensteinLW3614.5 x 10Optilene
HW820.84.5 x 10Premilene
(54)200950InguinalTEPLW<50>112 x 15NR
HW≈100<112 x 15NR
(55)200925InguinalLichtensteinLW43NRNRSurgimesh WN
HW80Surgipro
(56)2011300InguinalTAPPMW550.7510 x 15Premilene LP
HW901.210 x 15Prolene

Study characteristics and mesh properties.

a

Only the numbers of eligible patients are presented; ref, reference; NR, not reported; TEP, total extraperitoneal; TAPP, transabdominal preperitoneal; LW, lightweight; HW, heavyweight; MW, mediumweight.

In the 37 studies where the Lichtenstein technique was used, 30 lightweight and 18 heavyweight meshes were used (Table 2). In 12 studies where laparoscopic techniques were used, 3 lightweight, 12 heavyweight, and 1 mediumweight mesh were used (Table 2).

TABLE 2

Operation and mesh typeNumber of studies (%)
Lichtenstein repair37
 lightweight19 (51)
 heavyweight13 (35)
 mediumweight0 (0)
 light- and heavyweight5 (14)
Laparoscopic repair12
 lightweight2 (17)
 heavyweight8 (67)
 mediumweight0 (0)
 light- and heavyweight1 (8)
 medium- and heavyweight1 (8)

Summary of groin hernia repairs and type of meshes used.

Lightweight Mesh

A total of 26 lightweight meshes were reported in 25 studies (9–28, 50–55) (Table 1). The areal weight was reported in all but one study (21), with a median of 39 g/m2, an IQR of 36–50 g/m2, and a range of 35–60 g/m2 (Figure 2A). The only study that did not report the weight in g/m2 described the weight as “approximately 60% lighter weight than traditional polypropylene mesh” (21). The pore size was reported in 13 studies (9–11, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 28, 50–53) (Figure 2B). Two studies described that the lightweight mesh had large pore size without specifying the size in mm (10, 22), while the remaining ten studies either reported the pore diameter in mm or in µm, which was converted to mm (one study informed the size by email (23)) (9, 11, 14, 18, 20, 23, 50–53). Two studies had unspecified pore sizes (9, 53) and two studies used a range (14, 28). Nevertheless, the median of all lightweight meshes was 1.6 mm with an IQR of 1.0–2.3 mm and a range of 1.0–4.0 mm.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Definition of lightweight meshes regarding (A) areal weight and (B) pore size diameter in mm. For studies that provided a range, the mean of this range was calculated and used in the figure. Some areal weight and pore sizes were reported in an unspecified manner, and these were categorised in the range closest to the minimum estimate (i.e., >1 was classified in the range closest to 1 but also greater than 1).

The mesh size was reported in cm in 15 studies (9, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 51–54). There were many variations, which are presented in Table 1.

Heavyweight Mesh

A total of 30 heavyweight meshes were reported in 28 studies (29–56) (Table 1). For all heavyweight meshes, the areal weight was reported in g/m2 with a median areal weight of 88 g/m2, an IQR of 81–104 g/m2, and a range of 72–116 g/m2 (Figure 3A).

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 3

Definition of heavyweight meshes regarding areal weight (A). Pore size for heavyweight meshes in mm (B). For studies that provided a range, the mean of this range was calculated and used in the figure. Both for areal weight and for pore sizes reported in greater-than x were categorised in the closest ranging group.

The pore size was reported in mm for 15 studies (33, 34, 36, 38–41, 45, 48, 49, 51–54, 56), with a median of 1.0 mm, an IQR of 0.84–1.0 mm, and a range of 0.08–1.8 mm (Figure 3B). One study that reported the mesh having 0.8–1.2 mm pores also described the mesh as having small pores (33), while another study only mentioned that the mesh was microporous without specifying the size in mm (28).

The mesh size was reported in 19 studies for 20 heavyweight meshes (29, 30, 33–35, 38, 40–44, 46, 47, 48, 51–54, 56). Nine of the meshes measured 10 × 15 cm (30, 33, 35, 42, 43, 47, 48, 56), but there were many variations (Table 1).

Discussion

In this systematic scoping review, we reported how mesh weight was defined in randomised controlled trials on groin hernia repair. There seemed to be a distinct definition in the areal weight, where lightweight had an areal weight of ≤60 g/m2 and heavyweight had an areal weight of >70 g/m2. Pore sizes overlapped between lightweight and heavyweight meshes.

This study has several strengths. It is reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (6), and the protocol was registered in a public database before data extraction to increase transparency (7). We conducted a broad search using various databases with assistance from an information specialist, and two authors screened the titles and abstracts and the full text studies. Our study also has limitations. Only one author extracted data, but all data were reviewed for accuracy. Another limitation is that we only included English language studies. However, only including English language rarely compromises the review quality (68). Thirdly, ten studies could not be retrieved. Lastly, since this study’s main focus was on mesh weight and pore sizes it does not include other technical aspects of mesh properties such as elasticity, tensile strength, and other design properties of the mesh.

We need a universal classification based on the specific properties of the mesh as proposed by an international guideline on inguinal hernia management (1). However, this guideline (1) also points out that a universal classification is hard to achieve. In this study, we have investigated how RCTs have defined light–, medium–, and heavyweight mesh terms for flat polypropylene or polyester meshes. Only one study used a mediumweight mesh, and the nomenclature should therefore probably only comprise lightweight and heavyweight mesh. Even though there was some consensus regarding the areal mesh weight in g/m2, there was no general agreement of what small pores and large pores are and if lightweight and heavyweight meshes have characteristic pore sizes. Earlier studies have tried to categorise mesh weight classes. A study from 2008 proposed a classification as follows (69): ultralight weight <35 g/m2, lightweight 35–50 g/m2, mediumweight 51–90 g/m2, and heavyweight >90 g/m2. Another proposed classification from 2012 (70) emphasised that in the previous classification (69), a heavyweight mesh weighing 91 g/m2 would be in the same category as a heavyweight mesh weighing almost three times the weight. Thus, they proposed a classification that doubles the next limit: ultra-light <35 g/m2, light ≥35 <70 g/m2, standard ≥70 < 140 g/m2, and heavy ≥140 g/m2. Recently, meta-analyses comparing light- and heavyweight meshes in patients undergoing laparoscopic repair (5) or Lichtenstein repair (4) for uncomplicated inguinal hernia have defined lightweight meshes as ≤ 50 g/m2 and heavyweight meshes as >70 g/m2. Some of the lightweight meshes in this scoping review were over 50 g/m2, but the heavyweight meshes were in the same category as the proposed definition by the meta-analyses (4, 5). This underlines the problem with the classifications as mesh types fall under different categories. It is important to achieve a common technical language so that surgeons with different backgrounds and educational systems agree upon and utilise a common language. This would ease comparison in meta-analyses, thereby guiding clinical practice. However, the mesh market is in constant development, and with the current data presented here, we propose a simplified definition where lightweight could be all meshes with an areal weight ≤60 g/m2 and heavyweight meshes would be all meshes with an areal weight >70 g/m2.

In conclusion, the areal weight for lightweight and heavyweight meshes had a wide range, but all studies have defined lightweight as being ≤60 g/m2 and heavyweight as being >70 g/m2. There was an overlap between light- and heavyweight meshes’ pore sizes with a tendency that lightweight meshes had larger pore sizes.

Statements

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

1.^Mendeley (2022). Available from: https://www.mendeley.com (Accessed November 2, 2022).

2.^Covidence (2022). Available from: https://www.covidence.org (Accessed November 2, 2022).

References

  • 1.

    The HerniaSurge Group. International Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management. Hernia (2018) 22:1–165. 10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x

  • 2.

    KehletHBay-NielsenM, Danish Hernia Database Collaboration. Nationwide Quality Improvement of Groin Hernia Repair from the Danish Hernia Database of 87,840 Patients from 1998 to 2005. Hernia (2008) 12:1–7. 10.1007/S10029-007-0285-5

  • 3.

    ÖbergSAndresenKKlausenTWRosenbergJ. Chronic Pain after Mesh versus Nonmesh Repair of Inguinal Hernias: a Systematic Review and a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Surgery (2018) 163:1151–9. 10.1016/j.surg.2017.12.017

  • 4.

    BakkerWJAufenackerTJBoschmanJSBurgmansJPJ. Lightweight Mesh Is Recommended in Open Inguinal (Lichtenstein) Hernia Repair: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Surgery (2020) 167:581–9. 10.1016/j.surg.2019.08.021

  • 5.

    BakkerWJAufenackerTJBoschmanJSBurgmansJPJ. Heavyweight Mesh Is superior to Lightweight Mesh in Laparo-Endoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: a Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann Surg (2021) 273:890–9. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003831

  • 6.

    TriccoACLillieEZarinWO’BrianKKColquhounHLevacDet alPRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med (2018) 169:467–73. 10.7326/M18-0850

  • 7.

    OSF Protocol. OSF Registration of a Scoping Review (2022). Available from: https://osf.io/rhm8n (Accessed October 30, 2022).

  • 8.

    GreenhalghTPeacockR. Effectiveness and Efficiency of Search Methods in Systematic Reviews of Complex Evidence: Audit of Primary Sources. BMJ (2005) 331:1064–5. 10.1136/BMJ.38636.593461.68

  • 9.

    PrakashPBansalVMisraMBabuDSagarRKrishnaAet alA Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Chronic Groin Pain and Quality of Life in Lightweight versus Heavyweight Polypropylene Mesh in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair. J Minim Access Surg (2016) 12:154–61. 10.4103/0972-9941.170018

  • 10.

    Aguilar-GarcíaJVillafuerte-FernandezRNtezes-HidalgoPIMeade-AguilarJARamirez-GarciaLunaJLMartinez-JimenezMA. Postoperative Inguinal Pain and Disability after Lichtenstein versus ONSTEP Hernia Repair: Analysis of Responses to the Inguinal Pain Questionnaire in Spanish. Surg Today (2021) 51:703–12. 10.1007/s00595-020-02155-8

  • 11.

    NikkoloCVaasnaTMurrusteMSuumannJÜKSeepterHet alThree-year Results of a Randomized Study Comparing Self-Gripping Mesh with Sutured Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair. J Surg Res (2017) 209:139–44. 10.1016/j.jss.2016.10.010

  • 12.

    MolegraafMJGrotenhuisBTorensmaBde RidderVLangeJFSwankDJet alThe HIPPO Trial, a Randomized Double-Blind Trial Comparing Self-Gripping Parietex Progrip Mesh and Sutured Parietex Mesh in Lichtenstein Hernioplasty: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study. Ann Surg (2017) 266:939–45. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002169

  • 13.

    HoyuelaCJuvanyMCarvajalFVeresATroyanoDTriasMet alRandomized Clinical Trial of Mesh Fixation with Glue or Sutures for Lichtenstein Hernia Repair. Br J Surg (2017) 104:688–94. 10.1002/bjs.10488

  • 14.

    NikkoloCVaasnaTMurrusteMSeepterHKirsimägiÜLepnerUThree-year Results of a Single-centre Single-Blinded Randomised Study Evaluating the Impact of Mesh Pore Size on Chronic Pain after Lichtenstein Hernioplasty. Scand J Surg (2016) 105:141–6. 10.1177/1457496915620311

  • 15.

    SmedsSNienhuijsSKullmanESandersDLLehnertTZiprinPet alIdentification and Management of the Ilio-Inguinal and Ilio-Hypogastric Nerves in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: Benefits of Self-Gripping Mesh. Hernia (2016) 20:33–41. 10.1007/s10029-015-1372-7

  • 16.

    LöfgrenJNordinPIbingiraCMatovuAGaliwangoEWladisA. A Randomized Trial of Low-Cost Mesh in Groin Hernia Repair. N Engl J Med (2016) 374:146–53. 10.1056/NEJMoa1505126

  • 17.

    RönkäKVironenJKössiJHulmiTSilvesterSHakalTet alRandomized Multicenter Trial Comparing Glue Fixation, Self-Gripping Mesh, and Suture Fixation of Mesh in Lichtenstein Hernia Repair (FinnMesh Study). Ann Surg (2015) 262:714–9. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001458

  • 18.

    NikkoloCVaasnaTMurrusteMSeepterHSuumannJTeinAet alSingle-center, Single-Blinded, Randomized Study of Self-Gripping versus Sutured Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair. J Surg Res (2015) 194:77–82. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.09.017

  • 19.

    SandersDLNienhuijsSZiprinPMiserezMGingell-LittlejohnMSmedsS. Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Self-Gripping Mesh with Suture Fixation of Lightweight Polypropylene Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair. Br J Surg (2014) 101:1373–82. 10.1002/bjs.9598

  • 20.

    NikkoloCVaasnaTMurrusteMSeepterHKirsimägiÜLepnerU. Randomized Clinical Study Evaluating the Impact of Mesh Pore Size on Chronic Pain after Lichtenstein Hernioplasty. J Surg Res (2014) 191:311–7. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.04.022

  • 21.

    KoningGGde VriesJBormGFKoeslagLVriensPWvan LaarhovenCJet alHealth Status One Year after Transinguinal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair and Lichtenstein’s Method: an Analysis Alongside a Randomized Clinical Study. Hernia (2013) 17:299–306. 10.1007/s10029-012-0963-9

  • 22.

    CanonicoSBeneventoRPernaGGuernieroRSciaudoneGPellinoGet alSutureless Fixation with Fibrin Glue of Lightweight Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: Effect on Postoperative Pain: a Double-Blind, Randomized Trial versus Standard Heavyweight Mesh. Surgery (2013) 153:126–30. 10.1016/j.surg.2012.06.024

  • 23.

    PieridesGScheininTRemesVHermunenKVironenJ. Randomized Comparison of Self-Fixating and Sutured Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair. Br J Surg (2012) 99:630–6. 10.1002/bjs.8705

  • 24.

    KingsnorthAGingell-LittlejohnMNienhuijsSSchüleSAppelPZiprinPet alRandomized Controlled Multicenter International Clinical Trial of Self-Gripping ParietexTM ProGripTM Polyester Mesh versus Lightweight Polypropylene Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: Interim Results at 3 Months. Hernia (2012) 16:287–94. 10.1007/s10029-012-0900-y

  • 25.

    ShenYSunWChenJLiuSWangM. NBCA Medical Adhesive (N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate) versus Suture for Patch Fixation in Lichtenstein Inguinal Herniorrhaphy: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Surgery (2012) 151:550–5. 10.1016/j.surg.2011.09.031

  • 26.

    PaajanenHKössiJSilvastiSHulmiTHakalTSandersDLet alRandomized Clinical Trial of Tissue Glue versus Absorbable Sutures for Mesh Fixation in Local Anaesthetic Lichtenstein Hernia Repair. Br J Surg (2011) 98:1245–51. 10.1002/bjs.7598

  • 27.

    ŚmietańskiMBuryKŚmietańskaIAOwczukRParadowskiT, Polish Hernia Study Group. Five-year Results of a Randomised Controlled Multi-centre Study Comparing Heavy-Weight Knitted versus Low-Weight, Non-woven Polypropylene Implants in Lichtenstein Hernioplasty. Hernia (2011) 15:495–501. 10.1007/s10029-011-0808-y

  • 28.

    IsilRGAvlanmisO. Effects of Totally Extraperitoneal and Lichtenstein Hernia Repair on Men's Sexual Function and Quality of Life. Surg Endosc (2020) 34:1103–11. 10.1007/s00464-019-06857-0

  • 29.

    FoudaEThabetWElsaidMEmileSElbazS. A Randomized Clinical Trial of Mesh Fixation with Cyanoacrylate Glue Compared to Sutures in Inguinal Hernia Repair. Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg (2020) 3:56. 10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_4_20

  • 30.

    PrabhuASCarbonellAHopeWWarrenJHigginsRJacobBet alRobotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg (2020) 155:380–7. 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0034

  • 31.

    RutegårdMGümüsçüRStylianidisGNordinPNilssonEHaapamäkiMM. Chronic Pain, Discomfort, Quality of Life and Impact on Sex Life after Open Inguinal Hernia Mesh Repair: an Expertise-Based Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Lightweight and Heavyweight Mesh. Hernia (2018) 22:411–8. 10.1007/s10029-018-1734-z

  • 32.

    LeeSDSonTLeeJ-BChangYS. Comparison of Partially-Absorbable Lightweight Mesh with Heavyweight Mesh for Inguinal Hernia Repair: Multicenter Randomized Study. Ann Surg Treat Res (2017) 93:322–30. 10.4174/astr.2017.93.6.322

  • 33.

    BurgmansJPJVoorbroodCEHSchoutenNSmakmanNEliasSCleversGJet alThree-month Results of the Effect of Ultrapro or Prolene Mesh on post-operative Pain and Well-Being Following Endoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair (TULP Trial). Surg Endosc (2015) 29:3171–8. 10.1007/s00464-014-4049-x

  • 34.

    DemetrashviliZKhutsishviliKPipiaIKenchadzeGEkaladzeE. Standard Polypropylene Mesh vs Lightweight Mesh for Lichtenstein Repair of Primary Inguinal Hernia: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Surg (2014) 12:1380–4. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.025

  • 35.

    ChatzimavroudisGPapaziogasBKoutelidakisIGalanisIAtmatzidisSChristopoulosPet alLichtenstein Technique for Inguinal Hernia Repair Using Polypropylene Mesh Fixed with Sutures vs. Self-Fixating Polypropylene Mesh: a Prospective Randomized Comparative Study. Hernia (2014) 18:193–8. 10.1007/s10029-013-1211-7

  • 36.

    PielacinskiKSzczepanikABWroblewskiT. Effect of Mesh Type, Surgeon and Selected Patients’ Characteristics on the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia with the Lichtenstein Technique. Randomized Trial. Wideochirurgia Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne (2013) 8:99–106. 10.5114/wiitm.2011.32824

  • 37.

    BuryKŚmietańskiM, Polish Hernia Study Group. Five-year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing a Polypropylene Mesh with a Poliglecaprone and Polypropylene Composite Mesh for Inguinal Hernioplasty. Hernia (2012) 16:549–53. 10.1007/s10029-012-0916-3

  • 38.

    PielacińskiKSzczepanikABMisiakAWróblewskiT. Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Inguinal Hernia Repair with Lichtenstein Technique Using Non-absorbable or Partially Absorbable Mesh. Preliminary Report. Wideochirurgia Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne (2011) 6:190–206. 10.5114/wiitm.2011.26253

  • 39.

    SilvestreACde MathiaGBFagundesDJMedeirosLRRosaMI. Shrinkage Evaluation of Heavyweight and Lightweight Polypropylene Meshes in Inguinal Hernia Repair: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Hernia (2011) 15:629–34. 10.1007/s10029-011-0853-6

  • 40.

    PeetersESpiessensCOyenRDe WeverLVanderschuerenDPenninckxFet alLaparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair in Men with Lightweight Meshes May Significantly Impair Sperm Motility: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg (2010) 252:240–6. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e8fac5

  • 41.

    ChowbeyPKGargNSharmaAKhullarRSoniVBaijalMet alProspective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Lightweight Mesh and Heavyweight Polypropylene Mesh in Endoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Groin Hernia Repair. Surg Endosc (2010) 24:3073–9. 10.1007/s00464-010-1092-0

  • 42.

    AbbasMHHamadeAChoudhryMNHamzaNNadeemRAmmoriBJ. Infiltration of Wounds and Extraperitoneal Space with Local Anesthetic in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Repair of Unilateral Inguinal Hernias: a Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial. Scand J Surg (2010) 99:18–23. 10.1177/145749691009900105

  • 43.

    KochABringmanSMyrelidPSmedsSKaldA. Randomized Clinical Trial of Groin Hernia Repair with Titanium-Coated Lightweight Mesh Compared with Standard Polypropylene Mesh. Br J Surg (2008) 95:1226–31. 10.1002/bjs.6325

  • 44.

    BringmanSWollertSÖsterbergJSmedbergSGranlundHHeikkinenT-J. Three-year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Lightweight or Standard Polypropylene Mesh in Lichtenstein Repair of Primary Inguinal Hernia. Br J Surg (2006) 93:1056–9. 10.1002/bjs.5403

  • 45.

    O’DwyerPJKingsnorthANMolloyRGSmallPKLammersBHoreyseckG. Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Impact of a Lightweight or Heavyweight Mesh on Chronic Pain after Inguinal Hernia Repair. Br J Surg (2005) 92:166–70. 10.1002/bjs.4833

  • 46.

    PostSWeissBWillerMNeufangTLorenzD. Randomized Clinical Trial of Lightweight Composite Mesh for Lichtenstein Inguinal Hernia Repair. Br J Surg (2004) 91:44–8. 10.1002/bjs.4387

  • 47.

    BansalVKMisraMCBabuDVictorJKumarSSagarRet alA Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes: Chronic Groin Pain and Quality of Life Following Totally Extraperitoneal (TEP) and Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair. Surg Endosc (2013) 27:2373–82. 10.1007/s00464-013-2797-7

  • 48.

    LangenbachMRSchmidtJUbrigBZirngiblH. Sixty-month Follow-Up after Endoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair with Three Types of Mesh: a Prospective Randomized Trial. Surg Endosc (2008) 22:1790–7. 10.1007/s00464-008-9863-6

  • 49.

    LangenbachMRSchmidtJZirngiblH. Comparison of Biomaterials in the Early Postoperative Period: Polypropylene Meshes in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair. Surg Endosc (2003) 17:1105–9. 10.1007/s00464-002-9167-1

  • 50.

    PaajanenH. A Single-Surgeon Randomized Trial Comparing Three Composite Meshes on Chronic Pain after Lichtenstein Hernia Repair in Local Anesthesia. Hernia (2007) 11:335–9. 10.1007/s10029-007-0236-1

  • 51.

    CarroJLPRiuSVLojoBRLatorreLGarciaMTAPardoBAet alRandomized Clinical Trial Comparing Low Density versus High Density Meshes in Patients with Bilateral Inguinal Hernia. Am Surg (2017) 83:1352–6. 10.1177/000313481708301217

  • 52.

    Yazdankhah KenaryAAfshinSNAhmadi AmoliHYagoobiNABorjianAYagoobiNet alRandomized Clinical Trial Comparing Lightweight Mesh with Heavyweight Mesh for Primary Inguinal Hernia Repair. Hernia (2013) 17:471–7. 10.1007/s10029-012-1009-z

  • 53.

    NikkoloCLepnerUMurrusteMVaasnaTSeepterHTikkTet alRandomised Clinical Trial Comparing Lightweight Mesh with Heavyweight Mesh for Inguinal Hernioplasty. Hernia (2010) 14:253–8. 10.1007/s10029-010-0630-y

  • 54.

    AgarwalBBAgarwalKAMahajanKC. Prospective Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Heavy- and Lightweight Polypropylene Mesh in Totally Extraperitoneal Repair of Inguinal Hernia: Early Results. Surg Endosc (2009) 23:242–7. 10.1007/s00464-008-0188-2

  • 55.

    ParadowskiTOlejarzAKontnyTLukasiewiczJSledzinskiZSmietanskaI. Polypropylene vs. ePTFE vs. WN Mesh for Lichtenstein Inguinal Hernia Repair—A Prospective Randomized, Double Blind Pilotstudy of One-Year Follow-Up. Wideochirurgia Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne (2009) 4:6–9.

  • 56.

    BittnerRLeiblBJKraftBSchwarzJ. One-year Results of a Prospective, Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Four Meshes in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair (TAPP). Hernia (2011) 15:503–10. 10.1007/s10029-011-0810-4

  • 57.

    PaajanenHRönkäKLauremaA. A Single-Surgeon Randomized Trial Comparing Three Meshes in Lichtenstein Hernia Repair: 2- and 5-year Outcome of Recurrences and Chronic Pain. Int J Surg (2013) 11:81–4. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.11.020

  • 58.

    RutegårdMLindqvistMSvenssonJNordinPHaapamäkiMM. Chronic Pain after Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: Expertise-Based Randomized Clinical Trial of Heavyweight or Lightweight Mesh. Br J Surg (2021) 108:138–44. 10.1093/bjs/znaa049

  • 59.

    BittnerRSchmedtC-GLeiblBJSchwarzJ. Early Postoperative and One Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Impact of Extralight Titanized Polypropylene Mesh and Traditional Heavyweight Polypropylene Mesh on Pain and Seroma Production in Laparoscopic Hernia Repair (TAPP). World J Surg (2011) 35:1791–7. 10.1007/s00268-011-1148-x

  • 60.

    BakkerWJRoosMMKerkmanTBurgmansJPJ. Experience with the PINQ-PHONE Telephone Questionnaire for Detection of Recurrences after Endoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair. Hernia (2019) 23:685–91. 10.1007/s10029-019-01909-9

  • 61.

    MatikainenMAroEVironenJKössiJHulmiTSilvastiSet alFactors Predicting Chronic Pain after Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: a Regression Analysis of Randomized Trial Comparing Three Different Meshes with Three Fixation Methods (FinnMesh Study). Hernia (2018) 22:813–8. 10.1007/s10029-018-1772-6

  • 62.

    RoosMBakkerWJSchoutenNVoorbroodCCleversGJVerleisdonkEJet alHigher Recurrence Rate after Endoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal (TEP) Inguinal Hernia Repair with Ultrapro Lightweight Mesh: 5-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial (TULP-Trial). Ann Surg (2018) 268:241–6. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002649

  • 63.

    MatikainenMVironenJKössiJHulmiTHertsiMRantanenTet alImpact of Mesh and Fixation on Chronic Inguinal Pain in Lichtenstein Hernia Repair: 5-year Outcomes from the Finn Mesh Study. World J Surg (2021) 45:459–64. 10.1007/s00268-020-05835-1

  • 64.

    MillerBTPrabhuASPetroCCBeffaLRACarbonellAMHopeWet alLaparoscopic versus Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair: 1- and 2-year Outcomes from the RIVAL Trial. Surg Endosc (2022) 37:723–8. 10.1007/s00464-022-09320-9

  • 65.

    BurgmansJPJVoorbroodCEHSimmermacherRKJSchoutenNSmakmanNCleversGet alLong-term Results of a Randomized Double-Blinded Prospective Trial of a Lightweight (Ultrapro) versus a Heavyweight Mesh (Prolene) in Laparoscopic Total Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair (TULP-Trial). Ann Surg (2016) 263:862–6. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001579

  • 66.

    PeetersESpiessensCOyenRDe WeverLVanderschuerenDPennickxFet alSperm Motility after Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair with Lightweight Meshes: 3-year Follow-Up of a Randomised Clinical Trial. Hernia (2014) 18:361–7. 10.1007/s10029-012-1028-9

  • 67.

    NikkoloCMurrusteMVaasnaTSeepterHTikkTLepnerU. Three-year Results of Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Lightweight Mesh with Heavyweight Mesh for Inguinal Hernioplasty. Hernia (2012) 16:555–9. 10.1007/s10029-012-0951-0

  • 68.

    MorrisonAPolisenaJHusereauDMoultonKClarkMFianderMet alThe Effect of English-language Restriction on Systematic Review-Based Meta-Analyses: a Systematic Review of Empirical Studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care (2012) 28:138–44. 10.1017/S0266462312000086

  • 69.

    EarleDBMarkLA. Prosthetic Material in Inguinal Hernia Repair: How Do I Choose?Surg Clin North Am (2008) 88:179–201. 10.1016/J.SUC.2007.11.002

  • 70.

    CodaALambertiRMartoranaS. Classification of Prosthetics Used in Hernia Repair Based on Weight and Biomaterial. Hernia (2012) 16:9–20. 10.1007/S10029-011-0868-Z

Summary

Keywords

inguinal hernia, groin hernia, femoral hernia, lightweight mesh, heavyweight mesh

Citation

Deveci CD, Öberg S and Rosenberg J (2023) Definition of Mesh Weight and Pore Size in Groin Hernia Repair: A Systematic Scoping Review of Randomised Controlled Trials. J. Abdom. Wall Surg. 2:11179. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2023.11179

Received

08 January 2023

Accepted

28 March 2023

Published

13 April 2023

Volume

2 - 2023

Updates

Copyright

© 2023 Deveci, Öberg and Rosenberg.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Can Deniz Deveci, , orcid.org/0000-0003-1095-3983

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Share on WeChat

Scan with WeChat to share this article