Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 636 


 
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Table of Contents   
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 67-68
No-mesh inguinal hernia repair with continuous absorbable sutures: Is it a step forward or backward?


Department of Surgery, Prince Charles Hospital, Wales; Prince Charles Hospital, Gurnos, Merthyr Tydfil-CF47 9DT, United Kingdom

Click here for correspondence address and email
 

How to cite this article:
Naguib N, ElSamerraai A. No-mesh inguinal hernia repair with continuous absorbable sutures: Is it a step forward or backward?. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2009;15:67-8

How to cite this URL:
Naguib N, ElSamerraai A. No-mesh inguinal hernia repair with continuous absorbable sutures: Is it a step forward or backward?. Saudi J Gastroenterol [serial online] 2009 [cited 2019 Jul 16];15:67-8. Available from: http://www.saudijgastro.com/text.asp?2009/15/1/67/45069


Sir,

The no-mesh inguinal hernia repair, with its many different modifications, is considered in the current surgical practice as the tension repair. The tension inhibits full and effective healing of the edges. As a result, the muscle edges may pull apart causing a higher failure rate with recurrent (often larger and more complex) hernia. [1]

Desarda, [2] in the study involving 229 patients, revived the subject of nonmesh hernia repair. He used a new surgical technique using absorbable suture material for the inguinal hernia repair. The author claims a less recurrence rate and less postoperative complications with this new technique.

There are some concerns regarding this new surgical technique that need to be addressed.

There is a wide range of the duration of the follow-up for this number of patients from 6-42 months. In previous studies [Table 1] for the nonmesh inguinal hernia repair, longer periods of follow-up were used for larger numbers of patients to properly assess these procedures.

As regard to the surgical technique, the author states that a thin filmy layer superficial to the external oblique muscle was left undisturbed. The author fails to describe the significance of this maneuver. Furthermore, the surgical technique lacks the benefit of the tension-free repair. In fact, there is contradiction in the discussion of the procedure, as the author denies the absence of tension on the suture line (paragraph 4) while elsewhere (paragraph 6) he mentions that contraction of the muscles makes tension on the muscle strip.

The repair depends on the aponeurotic sheath of the external oblique as the only posterior layer but the original weak posterior wall has not been repaired. Suturing the edge of the upper flap to the posterior wall does not strengthen the posterior wall muscles as claimed. On the contrary, it disturbs the physiology of the abdominal wall muscles by suturing them together. So, it is not a physiological repair as claimed as the muscles run in different directions even in the inguinal canal region.

The author states that 209 patients preferred to stay back even though they were allowed to go home the same day; the author fails to give an explanation for this preference. He defined a scoring system for pain but there is no definition of the discomfort despite being experienced by most patients.

The study mentions the cost effectiveness of this outpatient technique, while there was no single patient who went home the same day. On the contrary, there is unexplained hospital stay of 8.74% patients for more than a day increasing the monetary burden for a simple procedure as hernia repair.

The author needs to be queried for the following: (1) Why should there be a long learning curve for general surgeons in other techniques and not for this one? (2) What are the risks of the dissection of inguinal canal floor that are not present in the mentioned technique?

Finally, it should be noted that it is not true that all the nonmesh repair techniques use interrupted stitches.[8]

 
   References Top

1.North Penn Hernia Institute. Available from: http//hernia.tripod.com. Accessed September 10, 2008.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Desarda MP. No-mesh inguinal hernia repair with continuous absorbable sutures: A dream or reality? A study of 229 patients. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2008;14:122-7.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Rutledge RH. The Cooper ligament repair. Surg Clin North Am 1993;73:471-85.  Back to cited text no. 3  [PUBMED]  
4.Welsh DR, Alexander MA. The Shouldice repair. Surg Clin North Am 1993;73:451-69.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL. A critical evaluation of the Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty. Int Surg 1994;79:76-9.   Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  
6.Rutkow IM, Robbins AW. Mesh plug hernia repair: A follow-up report. Surgery 1995;117:597-8.   Back to cited text no. 6  [PUBMED]  
7.Nyhus LM. Iliopubic tract repair of inguinal and femoral hernia. The posterior (preperitoneal) approach. Surg Clin North Am 1993;73:487-99.   Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Felix EL, Michas CA, Gonzalez MH Jr. Laparoscopic hernioplasty: TAPP vs TEP. Surg Endosc 1995;9:984-9.  Back to cited text no. 8  [PUBMED]  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Nader Naguib
Department of Surgery, Prince Charles Hospital, Wales; Prince Charles Hospital, Gurnos, Merthyr Tydfil-CF47 9DT
United Kingdom
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1319-3767.45069

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
  
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5130    
    Printed124    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded494    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal