Titanium-coated mesh versus standard polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Yang, S; Shen, Y-M; Wang, M-G; Zou, Z-Y; Jin, C-H; Chen, J

OBJECTIVE We aimed to compare the clinical outcome of titanium-coated mesh and polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. METHODS A total of 102 patients who received laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in January-June 2016 in Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, receiving either titanium-coated mesh (n = 50) or standard polypropylene mesh (n = 52). Multiple clinical parameters were collected and analyzed, including clinical manifestations, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, hospital cost, recovery time, and postoperative complications. RESULTS All procedures were completed. A statistical difference between two groups was not identified in regards to operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and recovery time (P > 0.05). Three cases with seroma and 15 with foreign body sensation were reported in the titanium-coated mesh group; 9 cases with seroma and 17 with foreign body sensation were reported in the standard polypropylene mesh group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of seroma and/or foreign body sensation. A lower hospital cost but longer recovery period was documented in the standard polypropylene mesh group (P < 0.05). No recurrence, infection or chronic pain was observed during 1-year follow-up in both groups. CONCLUSION Titanium-coated mesh possesses comparable clinical qualities as the standard polypropylene mesh but with a shorter recovery period. Therefore, this mesh is promising for clinical practice though the cost is higher than the standard polypropylene mesh.