Clinical comparison between wall defects surgery using conventional and low-adhesion mesh materials Preliminary results.

PURPOSE: The use of prosthetic materials for hernia repair has become a standard procedure. Still the optimal material has not yet been found. Primitive hernia with loss of substance and big incisional hernia repair requires a prosthetic material which not induce, especially in the area of visceral peritoneal contact, chronic inflammation and fibrosis. The aim of this study is to clinically compare two different mesh materials: uncoated monofilament polypropylene and polypropylene- polyurethane double surface mesh. METHODS: Forty eight primitive hernia and incisional hernia affected patients were included in the study. They were randomly allocated in two groups. In each group a different type of mesh was utilized, respectively uncoated monofilament polypropylene mesh and polypropylene-polyurethane double surface synthetic mesh. Lichtenstein and Rives surgical techniques were utilized. Intra-operative, early and late post-operative complications were clinically evaluated. RESULTS: Uncoated monofilament polypropylene meshes treated patients showed higher abdominal pain, inflammatory diseases and hernia recurrence incidence than polypropylene-polyurethane double surface meshes. Abdominal wall hypo-mobility, discomfort and atypical sensation were the same in the two groups of treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited number of our patient's set, from our preliminary results is possible to assert that polypropylene-polyurethane double surface meshes have revealed superior bio-functional and bio-compatible efficacy.