Hernia, InguinalNCT04272424
Changing the Innate Consensus About Mesh Fixation in Trans-abdominal Preperitoneal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty in Adults: Short and Long Term Outcome. Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
A study testing laparoscopic mesh fixation in people with Hernia, Inguinal, run by Zagazig University.
Trial summary
Introduction: Inguinal hernioplasty is the standard treatment for inguinal hernia. Mesh fixation is used to keep mesh in place for which various mesh fixation techniques have been used in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, but their effectiveness has remained inconclusive. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 50 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Hernia, Inguinal
- What is being tested?
- laparoscopic mesh fixation
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 3 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2016to 1 Jul 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 20 to 50 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Age ranging from 20 to 50
- Both sex
- An uncomplicated oblique inguinal hernia.
- Unilateral hernia
Who cannot join
- Patients younger than 20 or older than 50 year old
- Patients with complicated hernia
- Bilateral hernia
- Recurrent hernia
- Patients with previous lower abdominal surgery.
About this study
Introduction: Inguinal hernioplasty is the standard treatment for inguinal hernia. Mesh fixation is used to keep mesh in place for which various mesh fixation techniques have been used in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, but their effectiveness has remained inconclusive.
Aim of the work: Randomized comparative study comparing early and late outcome of different method of mesh fixation.
Methods: In Zagazig University Hospitals, over the period from July 2016 to July 2018, patients with with oblique inguinal hernias undergoing Tans abdominal preperitoneal technique were randomized into 3 groups: Group A; mesh non fixation . Group B; tacker mesh fixation Group C: Cyanoacrylic tissue glues (Histoacryl) mesh fixation Clinical effects were assessed by the following variables: intraoperative data, postoperative outcome as regard recurrence rate, postoperative complications, analgesic consumption, operation time, hospital stay, and patient costs. Follow up was 18 months.
Read the detailed description
Inguinal hernias are the commonest hernia met in clinical practice and accounts for 75% of abdominal hernia. Inguinal hernia repair is regarded as the standard treatment for adult symptomatic inguinal hernia following the international guideline for groin hernia management in which mesh is used to reinforce inguinal floor. Surgical mesh repair can be performed by open or laparoscopic techniques. Lichtenstein repair is commonly applied for open approach whereas trans-abdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) and totally extra peritoneal repair (TEP) are commonly used for laparoscopic approach.
During the repair of an inguinal hernia, sutures or tacks are generally used to secure the prosthetic mesh in place. In TAPP repairs the peritoneum is closed using sutures or tacks. These mesh fixation or peritoneal closure techniques may contribute to postoperative chronic pain presumably due to nerve irritation or entrapment .
Several techniques for mesh fixations have been used including suture, glue or self-gripping mesh for open hernia repair (OHR); metallic tack, absorbable tack, glue, suture, self-gripping mesh or even non-fixation techniques for laparoscopic hernia repair (LHR). Up to date, there have been eight systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) on OHR (ie, glue vs suture (n=5) and self-gripping mesh vs suture (n=3) and one network meta-analysis (NMA For LHR, comparisons were tack and glue (n=6).
fixation versus no fixation (n=3) .Although evidences were interesting, the overall results were inconclusive. In mesh-based repair, flat mesh is recommended over three-dimension mesh, while self-gripping mesh is another alternative mesh..
Intraoperative strategies to reduce pain include the non-fixation of mesh or the use of non-mechanical methods of mesh fixation other than tacking or suturing, which may be less traumatic to the local tissue and less likely to cause local nerve entrapment. These non-mechanical methods include self-fixating meshes or glue. Similarly, closing the peritoneum with sutures may be less traumatic than the use of tacks, thus resulting in less postoperative pain .
Once positioned, meshes are designed to be integrated in local tissue by a fibrotic reaction that gradually incorporates them. Therefore, a good fixation is essential to secure the mesh in its correct position, while the integration process occurs. The introduction of synthetic meshes and their proper fixation has reduced recurrence rates to below 5%. As a consequence, the most frequent postoperative morbidities have become mesh migration, chronic pain, infection, and seroma .
Cyanoacrylic glues ensure high-degree and strong bonding to biologic tissues .When they get in contact with blood or water contained in the tissue, they form a very tight cover, binding to the surface within 5-6 s Overall, tacks provide excellent fixation strength, and they are also easy to apply. Nevertheless, their use is associated with significant morbidity. The penetration of the abdominal wall, in fact, may cause nerve and vessel entrapment. Also, tacks are themselves foreign bodies introduced in the abdomen, so they may cause inflammatory reactions. As a result, a significant number of patients suffer from pain and develop adhesion in the postoperative period. Moreover, cases of migration of titanium tacks have been described. At present, absorbable tacks are connected to lower inflammation rates, adhesion formation, and migration so the use of titanium tacks is no longer advisable
Aim of the work:
to determine whether there is any clinical or statistical difference in outcomes and morbidity when mesh is fixed or not during laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. We will also compare different methods of mesh fixation (i.e.no fixation, tacks (non-absorbable and absorbable), and histoacryl) and techniques of peritoneal closure in TAPP repairs (tacks/sutures).
Patients \& Methods:
Our study is a randomized controlled clinical trial. It was conducted on sixty adult male patients presenting with oblique inguinal hernia admitted in general surgery department, faculty of medicine Zagazig university from June 2016 to June 2018.
All the patients in this study were performed under the same surgical team after fulfilling the consent of the operation and after acceptance of the faculty of medicine Zagazig ethical committee.
The patients were randomly divided into three groups Group (A): includes twenty patients: no mesh fixation. Group (B): includes twenty patients: fixation of the mesh by tacker Group C: includes twenty patients: fixation of mesh by histoacryl.
Types of outcome measures Primary outcomes: Hernia recurrence (clinical or radiological at any time point), Chronic pain: pain persisting beyond three months postoperatively and persisting numbness: numbness in the groin or testicle persisting beyond three months postoperatively Secondary outcomes: Length of surgery (in minutes), Immediate postoperative pain (visual analogue scale (VAS)/ pain score),Vascular/visceral injury at operation,Haematoma/seroma development in postoperative period, Length of hospital stay (in days),Urinary retention in immediate postoperative period, Wound infection/mesh infection at any time point and Recovery time to normal activity (in days)
- Conditions
- Hernia, Inguinal
- Being tested
- laparoscopic mesh fixation
- Medical subject headings
- Hernia, Inguinal
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
laparoscopic mesh fixationProcedure or surgery
laparoscopic mesh fixation by non fixation,tacker and histoacryl
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| group A | Active comparator | laparoscopic hernioplasty with no fixation Receives: Procedure: laparoscopic mesh fixation |
| group B | Active comparator | laparoscopic hernioplasty with tacker fixation Receives: Procedure: laparoscopic mesh fixation |
| group C | Active comparator | laparoscopic hernioplasty with histoacryl fixation Receives: Procedure: laparoscopic mesh fixation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
pain following lap hernioplasty with different method of fixation
pain on visual analogue score
Measured: 1.5 years
Secondary outcomes (1)
recurrence of the disease following lap hernioplasty with different method of mesh fixation
recurrent hernia
Measured: 1.5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Feb 2020
- Study start1 Jul 2016
- Primary completion1 Jul 2018
- Study completion1 Jul 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Hernia, InguinalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 3 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Zagazig University
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Tamer Alsaied Alnaimy, Zagazig University
- Investigators
- tamer A. alnaimy, MD, Principal investigator, Zagazig University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04272424
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- zagazig university 3
- Status last verified
- Sep 2022
- First submitted
- 11 Feb 2020
- Last updated
- 7 Sep 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Sep 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Changing the Innate Consensus About Mesh Fixation in Trans-abdominal Preperitoneal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty in Adults: Short and Long Term Outcome. Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04272424
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- zagazig university 3
- Conditions
- Hernia, Inguinal
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 3 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Zagazig UniversityOther government
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jul 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jul 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Introduction: Inguinal hernioplasty is the standard treatment for inguinal hernia. Mesh fixation is used to keep mesh in place for which various mesh fixation techniques have been used in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, but their effectiveness has remained inconclusive.
Aim of the work: Randomized comparative study comparing early and late outcome of different method of mesh fixation.
Methods: In Zagazig University Hospitals, over the period from July 2016 to July 2018, patients with with oblique inguinal hernias undergoing Tans abdominal preperitoneal technique were randomized into 3 groups: Group A; mesh non fixation . Group B; tacker mesh fixation Group C: Cyanoacrylic tissue glues (Histoacryl) mesh fixation Clinical effects were assessed by the following variables: intraoperative data, postoperative outcome as regard recurrence rate, postoperative complications, analgesic consumption, operation time, hospital stay, and patient costs. Follow up was 18 months.
Detailed description
Inguinal hernias are the commonest hernia met in clinical practice and accounts for 75% of abdominal hernia. Inguinal hernia repair is regarded as the standard treatment for adult symptomatic inguinal hernia following the international guideline for groin hernia management in which mesh is used to reinforce inguinal floor. Surgical mesh repair can be performed by open or laparoscopic techniques. Lichtenstein repair is commonly applied for open approach whereas trans-abdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) and totally extra peritoneal repair (TEP) are commonly used for laparoscopic approach.
During the repair of an inguinal hernia, sutures or tacks are generally used to secure the prosthetic mesh in place. In TAPP repairs the peritoneum is closed using sutures or tacks. These mesh fixation or peritoneal closure techniques may contribute to postoperative chronic pain presumably due to nerve irritation or entrapment .
Several techniques for mesh fixations have been used including suture, glue or self-gripping mesh for open hernia repair (OHR); metallic tack, absorbable tack, glue, suture, self-gripping mesh or even non-fixation techniques for laparoscopic hernia repair (LHR). Up to date, there have been eight systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) on OHR (ie, glue vs suture (n=5) and self-gripping mesh vs suture (n=3) and one network meta-analysis (NMA For LHR, comparisons were tack and glue (n=6).
fixation versus no fixation (n=3) .Although evidences were interesting, the overall results were inconclusive. In mesh-based repair, flat mesh is recommended over three-dimension mesh, while self-gripping mesh is another alternative mesh..
Intraoperative strategies to reduce pain include the non-fixation of mesh or the use of non-mechanical methods of mesh fixation other than tacking or suturing, which may be less traumatic to the local tissue and less likely to cause local nerve entrapment. These non-mechanical methods include self-fixating meshes or glue. Similarly, closing the peritoneum with sutures may be less traumatic than the use of tacks, thus resulting in less postoperative pain .
Once positioned, meshes are designed to be integrated in local tissue by a fibrotic reaction that gradually incorporates them. Therefore, a good fixation is essential to secure the mesh in its correct position, while the integration process occurs. The introduction of synthetic meshes and their proper fixation has reduced recurrence rates to below 5%. As a consequence, the most frequent postoperative morbidities have become mesh migration, chronic pain, infection, and seroma .
Cyanoacrylic glues ensure high-degree and strong bonding to biologic tissues .When they get in contact with blood or water contained in the tissue, they form a very tight cover, binding to the surface within 5-6 s Overall, tacks provide excellent fixation strength, and they are also easy to apply. Nevertheless, their use is associated with significant morbidity. The penetration of the abdominal wall, in fact, may cause nerve and vessel entrapment. Also, tacks are themselves foreign bodies introduced in the abdomen, so they may cause inflammatory reactions. As a result, a significant number of patients suffer from pain and develop adhesion in the postoperative period. Moreover, cases of migration of titanium tacks have been described. At present, absorbable tacks are connected to lower inflammation rates, adhesion formation, and migration so the use of titanium tacks is no longer advisable
Aim of the work:
to determine whether there is any clinical or statistical difference in outcomes and morbidity when mesh is fixed or not during laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. We will also compare different methods of mesh fixation (i.e.no fixation, tacks (non-absorbable and absorbable), and histoacryl) and techniques of peritoneal closure in TAPP repairs (tacks/sutures).
Patients \& Methods:
Our study is a randomized controlled clinical trial. It was conducted on sixty adult male patients presenting with oblique inguinal hernia admitted in general surgery department, faculty of medicine Zagazig university from June 2016 to June 2018.
All the patients in this study were performed under the same surgical team after fulfilling the consent of the operation and after acceptance of the faculty of medicine Zagazig ethical committee.
The patients were randomly divided into three groups Group (A): includes twenty patients: no mesh fixation. Group (B): includes twenty patients: fixation of the mesh by tacker Group C: includes twenty patients: fixation of mesh by histoacryl.
Types of outcome measures Primary outcomes: Hernia recurrence (clinical or radiological at any time point), Chronic pain: pain persisting beyond three months postoperatively and persisting numbness: numbness in the groin or testicle persisting beyond three months postoperatively Secondary outcomes: Length of surgery (in minutes), Immediate postoperative pain (visual analogue scale (VAS)/ pain score),Vascular/visceral injury at operation,Haematoma/seroma development in postoperative period, Length of hospital stay (in days),Urinary retention in immediate postoperative period, Wound infection/mesh infection at any time point and Recovery time to normal activity (in days)
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| group A | Active comparator | Procedure: laparoscopic mesh fixationlaparoscopic hernioplasty with no fixation |
| group B | Active comparator | Procedure: laparoscopic mesh fixationlaparoscopic hernioplasty with tacker fixation |
| group C | Active comparator | Procedure: laparoscopic mesh fixationlaparoscopic hernioplasty with histoacryl fixation |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 50 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Age ranging from 20 to 50
- Both sex
- An uncomplicated oblique inguinal hernia.
- Unilateral hernia
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients younger than 20 or older than 50 year old
- Patients with complicated hernia
- Bilateral hernia
- Recurrent hernia
- Patients with previous lower abdominal surgery.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| laparoscopic mesh fixationlaparoscopic mesh fixation by non fixation,tacker and histoacryl | Procedure or surgery | group A, group B, group C |
Primary outcome
pain following lap hernioplasty with different method of fixation
Time frame: 1.5 years
pain on visual analogue score
1 secondary outcome
recurrence of the disease following lap hernioplasty with different method of mesh fixation
Time frame: 1.5 years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Sep 2022.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Hernia, Inguinal
Active, not recruiting
Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of a New Laparoscopic Non-mesh Hernia Needle Set Designed for Indirect Inguinal Hernia
Inguinal Hernia, Without Mention of Obstruction or Gangrene
Recruiting
Desarda Tissue Technique vs Lichtenstein Technique for Primary Inguinal Hernia Repair
Inguinal Hernia Unilateral, Complications of Surgical Procedures or Medical Care
Recruiting
Permanent Versus Slowly Dissolving Stitches for Non-Mesh (Shouldice) Groin Hernia Repair
Inguinal Hernia
Active, not recruiting
Urinary Catheterization Versus No Catheterization in Laparoscopic Total Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair
Inguinal Hernias
Recruiting
Comparison of Two Surgical Techniques for Indirect Inguinal Hernia Repair
Indirect Inguinal Hernia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
tamer A. alnaimy, MD principal investigator
Zagazig University
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing laparoscopic mesh fixation in people with Hernia, Inguinal, run by Zagazig University.
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 4 inclusion and 5 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Sep 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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 is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
pain following lap hernioplasty with different method of fixation (time frame: 1.5 years). 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 7 Sep 2022; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 30 Oct 2026.