The Economic Impact of Four Varieties of Mesh Inguinal Hernia Repair- a Double-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Trial

Study Summary

There are a variety of methods to repair inguinal hernias. Each has its advocate and may confer advantages to individual patients. Postoperative pain, convalescence, recurrence, and economics have all been evaluated however none in a randomized blinded fashion. Recently, investigators have attempted to address some of these concerns with new prosthetic materials. The preferred method of repair currently employs a tension free technique using mesh prosthesis. The approach as advocated by Lichtenstein involves reinforcing the floor of the inquinal canal with an onlay mesh. Newer approaches use a double layer mesh that reinforces the floor in a preperitoneal and onlay technique (Prolene Hernia System) while obliterating the internal inguinal ring or by the Mesh Plug repair (bioresorbable or permanent) which reinforces the inguinal floor with an onlay mesh while obliterating the internal inguinal ring. Currently no study has compared these techniques for ease of performance, postoperative pain, convalescence, quality of life, or cost in a randomized double blinded fashion. NMCP is uniquely qualified to compare these repairs prospectively and blinded to best assess the most cost effective approach which causes the least pain. A prospective double-blinded randomized trial comparing the Lichtenstein onlay mesh technique to Prolene Hernia Sytem (PHS), Mesh Plug Repair (MPR), or Gore Bioresorbable plug for postoperative pain, duration of convalescence, cost, impact on quality of life and ease of performance is proposed. Impact on quality of life will be assessed serially with the SF 12 which is a validated survey used with serial measures in the acute setting.