Randomized controlled trial comparing prolene hernia system and lichtenstein method for inguinal hernia repair
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026
Application of a New Mesh Fixation Method in Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair
Published on: December 23, 2022
Pandanaboyana Sanjay1, Dean Harris, Philippa Jones
1Department of Surgery, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant, UK.
Background:
There are no data regarding the long-term outcomes of prolene hernia system (PHS) mesh in the published reports. The aim of the study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of the PHS mesh with the Lichtenstein mesh technique.
Methods:
Sixty-four patients with inguinal hernia were randomized to undergo either a PHS or a Lichtenstein repair under local anaesthesia as a day case. Early outcome measures were duration of surgery, pain scores, analgesic requirements, time to return to work, driving and full activity. Long-term outcome measures were chronic groin pain and recurrence.
Results:
Mean duration of surgery in the PHS group was 36 min (SD +/- 11) versus 34 min in the Lichtenstein group (SD +/- 8; P = 0.3). There was no significant difference in analgesic requirements (P = 0.65). Overall mean pain score was 3.5/10 versus 2.5/10 (P = 0.1). Mean time to return to work was 42 versus 30 days (P = 0.3), returning to driving was 20 versus 14 days (P = 0.2) and full activity was 21 versus 22 days (P = 0.8). Chronic groin pain developed in four patients in the PHS group (12.9%) and in five patients in the Lichtenstein group (15.1%; P > 0.05). One patient developed recurrent herniation in the PHS group. The median follow up was 4.2 years (range, 4-4.6 years). Patient satisfaction was very high with both the techniques.
Conclusion:
There is no significant difference in the early and long-term outcomes between PHS and Lichtenstein hernia repairs. The PHS technique involving preperitoneal dissection is well tolerated and easy to carry out under local anaesthesia.