Polypropylene mesh versus double face mesh in totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

Background Inguinal hernia is the commonest type of hernia. Repair of the inguinal hernia is one of the most widely recognized surgeries done all over the world. With the advancement in knowledge, laparoscopic hernioplasty has become very popular, accounting for ∼15–20% of hernia repair, with great results. Objectives In this study, we have tried to determine if there is a significant difference between using conventional polypropylene mesh and double face mesh (polypropylene+vicryl) in totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic hernia repair. Patients and methods This study had been conducted on 20 patients with inguinal hernia, who were divided into two groups. Group A represented patients who underwent TEP repair of an inguinal hernia using polypropylene mesh, and group B represented patients who underwent TEP repair of inguinal hernia with double face mesh. Results Regarding operative time, same operative time was seen in both groups. Nevertheless, much longer time was noticed in case of the peritoneal tear in group A. There were no intraoperative complications encountered in both groups, such as bleeding, visceral injuries, and conversion to transabdominal preperitoneal or open technique; however, peritoneal tear occurred in both groups. Regarding the postoperative period, there was no difference in the postoperative parameters between both groups, including pain, hospital stay, and recurrence. Nevertheless, the cost in the double face mesh group is significantly higher than polypropylene mesh group. Conclusion TEP approach is an acceptable procedure for inguinal hernia repair with less visceral and vascular injuries. There was no difference in outcome between TEP repair of inguinal hernia either using the polypropylene or double face mesh. Randomized studies on a larger number of patients are needed to confirm the results.