AzTrials
AzTrials

Inguinal HerniaNCT00416364

The Economic Impact of Four Varieties of Mesh Inguinal Hernia Repair- a Double-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Trial

An observational study of Inguinal Hernia, run by United States Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth at 1 site in United States.

Terminated

Stopped early. The study ended before it was planned to and will not resume.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

There are a variety of methods to repair inguinal hernias. Each has its advocate and may confer advantages to individual patients. Postoperative pain, convalescence, recurrence, and economics have all been evaluated however none in a randomized blinded fashion. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 21 years and older, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Inguinal Hernia
How many people
23 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Mar 2006to Oct 2007
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 21 years and older
  • Men only
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: AD males with primary hernia

Who may be able to join

  • Unilateral primary inguinal hernia presenting for repair

Who cannot join

  • Recurrent repairs
  • Females
  • Bilateral repairs
  • Repairs done with other operative procedures

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • Naval Medical Center Department of Surgery

    Portsmouth, Virginia, 23708

Other trials in United States

About this study

There are a variety of methods to repair inguinal hernias. Each has its advocate and may confer advantages to individual patients. Postoperative pain, convalescence, recurrence, and economics have all been evaluated however none in a randomized blinded fashion. Recently, investigators have attempted to address some of these concerns with new prosthetic materials. The preferred method of repair currently employs a tension free technique using mesh prosthesis. The approach as advocated by Lichtenstein involves reinforcing the floor of the inquinal canal with an onlay mesh. Newer approaches use a double layer mesh that reinforces the floor in a preperitoneal and onlay technique (Prolene Hernia System) while obliterating the internal inguinal ring or by the Mesh Plug repair (bioresorbable or permanent) which reinforces the inguinal floor with an onlay mesh while obliterating the internal inguinal ring. Currently no study has compared these techniques for ease of performance, postoperative pain, convalescence, quality of life, or cost in a randomized double blinded fashion. NMCP is uniquely qualified to compare these repairs prospectively and blinded to best assess the most cost effective approach which causes the least pain. A prospective double-blinded randomized trial comparing the Lichtenstein onlay mesh technique to Prolene Hernia Sytem (PHS), Mesh Plug Repair (MPR), or Gore Bioresorbable plug for postoperative pain, duration of convalescence, cost, impact on quality of life and ease of performance is proposed. Impact on quality of life will be assessed serially with the SF 12 which is a validated survey used with serial measures in the acute setting.

Read the detailed description
  1. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS/SUBJECT JUSTIFICATION
  2. General Approach To randomize between Lichtenstein, PHS, GBP,and MPR hernia repair in a double blinded fashion in patients presenting to the general surgery clinic with primary unilateral inguinal hernias. . Daily visual analogue pain scales (validated for this purpose) will be obtained. An SF 12, quality of life instrument, validated for this purpose will be provided on a weekly basis to assess impact, if any, that differing hernia repairs may have. This instrument has been validated to provide serial assessments in quality of life in surgical patients. (1) Research Objective 2. Comparison of operative costs between groups. 3. Comparison of Visual Analogue Pain Scale between groups to assess differences in percieved postoperative pain.
  3. Comparison of operative times between groups as an estimation of operative ease in performing the different procedures.
  4. Comparison of Quality of life suveys (SF 12) serially between groups. (2) Detail how many groups or arms are in the study and what each receives Patients will be assigned randomly to one of four comonly performed hernia repairs; Lichtenstein, MPR, GBP, and PHS. See below for details in the procedures. (3) Randomization Procedures Computer generated block randomized list will assign patients to one of four repairs on the morning of surgery.
  5. Methods and Materials
  6. Lichtenstein hernia repair: A piece of polyproplene mesh will be trimmed to fit the inguinal floor. The mesh will be secured to poupart's ligament and the conjoined tendon using 2-0 prolene suture. Tacking sutures of 2-0 Vicryl will be used laterally to secure the mesh in place.
  7. Mesh Plug hernia repair (MPR): A 2 part prosthesis (Perfix Plug) is fixed in place using 2-0 vicryl. The plug is secured into the inguinal ring and the onlay mesh is tacked to the same structures noted for the Lichtenstein hernia repair using 2-0 Vicyrl.
  8. Prolene Hernia System (PHS): The preperitoneal space is developed through the internal ring. The inner mesh is placed beneath the transversalis fascia and the superficial mesh sits above the transversalis fascia. The outer mesh is fixed with tacking sutures to the same structures noted for the Lichtenstein hernia repair using 2-0 Vicyrl.
  9. Gore Bioresorbable Plug (GBP): The plug is secured to the internal inguinal ring with 2-0 Vicryl.

Closure of the fascia of the external oblique, scarpa's fascia and skin will be accomplished with 2-0 vicryl (fascia) and 4-0 monocryl sutures for all hernia repairs. Postoperative management of pain will include oral narcotics and non steroidal anti inflammaory medication.

The active duty male patients with primary unilaterial inguinal hernia seen in the General Surgery Clinic will be offered participation in the protocol. An investigator or Subinvestigator will explain the details of the study to eligible patients and if interested, they will consent said patients. They will be randomized the morning of the operative procedure. On discharge, the surgeon will recommend convalescent leave based on their individual preferances (this is current standard of care) and the patient will be asked to record their visual analogue pain scales daily. They will be seen in the surgery clinic before expiration of the con leave and re assessed for additional need for con leave by a clinic nurse (unaware of which surgical procedure the patient had ) who will provide recommendations for additional con leave to the responsible surgeon. The patient will be contacted weekly by and investigator and the telephone version of the SF12 will be administered until 30 days postoperatively (4 samples). The responsible surgeon has final responsibility for recommendation of con leave. . Operative times will be recorded from the operative record and costs will be generated from actual material costs and an average of OR room charges and anesthesia charges from the tidewater area.

  1. Standard of Care Primary inguinal hernias are repaired in a tension free fashion. The lichtenstein, mesh plug repair, bioresorbable plug, and prolene hernia system are commonly performed repairs. Surgeons choose one of these repairs based on personal preference and ease of performance.
  2. Experimental Procedure Randomization and blinding between hernia repair types, collecting pain data (VAS), costs, and quality of life questionaires.

We have propose the following changes to the protocol which have been submitted to the IRB to facilitate enrollment. The protocol was approved in February 2006 with an anticipated enrollment requirement of 680 patients. To date, one patient has enrolled. The majority of patients have declined participation because they prefer not to return to the clinic weekly until returning to work. As return to work and con leave were not primary end points of the study (operative times, VAS, and QOL are the endpoints of interest), the following changes are recommended to improve participation in the study.

Conditions
Inguinal Hernia
Keywords
hernia, inguinal, quality of life
Medical subject headings
Hernia, Inguinal, Hernia

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

Study groups in NCT00416364
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
1Not described
2Not described
3Not described
4Not described

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Comparison of Visual Analogue Pain Scale between groups to assess differences in percieved postoperative pain.

    Measured: 4 weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted28 Dec 2006 (estimated)
  2. Study startMar 2006
  3. Study completionOct 2007

Why it stopped: Inadequate accrural rates

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
23 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00416364
Sponsor's protocol ID
P06-020
Status last verified
Dec 2007
First submitted
27 Dec 2006
Last updated
5 Dec 2007
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Inguinal Hernia, run by United States Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Dec 2007. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study was stopped early (reason given: Inadequate accrural rates). Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Comparison of Visual Analogue Pain Scale between groups to assess differences in percieved postoperative pain. (time frame: 4 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Dec 2007.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in