[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.167.142.229. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study population.

Flowchart of the study population.

Figure 2
Relative risks for reoperation due to recurrence after Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty between 2002 and 2009 relative to the hazard baseline (cumulative reoperations after repairs with nonabsorbable suture mesh fixation) and adjusted for the 6 most prominent other risk variables in the Swedish Hernia Registry: sex, emergency/elective repair, primary/recurrent repair, anatomic location of hernia, diameter of hernia defect, and postoperative complications. The dotted lines delineate the 95% confidence intervals.

Relative risks for reoperation due to recurrence after Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty between 2002 and 2009 relative to the hazard baseline (cumulative reoperations after repairs with nonabsorbable suture mesh fixation) and adjusted for the 6 most prominent other risk variables in the Swedish Hernia Registry: sex, emergency/elective repair, primary/recurrent repair, anatomic location of hernia, diameter of hernia defect, and postoperative complications. The dotted lines delineate the 95% confidence intervals.

Table 1 
Variables in the Swedish Hernia Registry Registration Form
Variables in the Swedish Hernia Registry Registration Form
Table 2 
Principal Mesh Fixation Material in Lichtenstein Repairs, 2002-2009
Principal Mesh Fixation Material in Lichtenstein Repairs, 2002-2009
Table 3 
Reoperations From January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2009
Reoperations From January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2009
Table 4 
RR for Reoperation
RR for Reoperation
1.
Amid  PK Groin hernia repair: open techniques. World J Surg 2005;29 (8) 1046- 1051
PubMedArticle
2.
Kurzer  MBelsham  PAKark  AE The Lichtenstein repair for groin hernias. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83 (5) 1099- 1117
PubMedArticle
3.
Simons  MPAufenacker  TBay-Nielsen  M  et al.  European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 2009;13 (4) 343- 403
PubMedArticle
4.
Nordin  P Methods of repair.  In: Swedish Hernia Registry Annual Report 2008 [in Swedish]. Östersund, Sweden: Swedish Hernia Registry; 2009:17-21. http://www.vinkcancer.se. Accessed November 10, 2010
5.
Courtney  CADuffy  KSerpell  MGO’Dwyer  PJ Outcome of patients with severe chronic pain following repair of groin hernia. Br J Surg 2002;89 (10) 1310- 1314
PubMedArticle
6.
Nienhuijs  SWRosman  CStrobbe  LJWolff  ABleichrodt  RP An overview of the features influencing pain after inguinal hernia repair. Int J Surg 2008;6 (4) 351- 356
PubMedArticle
7.
Paajanen  H Do absorbable mesh sutures cause less chronic pain than nonabsorbable sutures after Lichtenstein inguinal herniorraphy? Hernia 2002;6 (1) 26- 28
PubMedArticle
8.
Silen  W Chronic pain and quality of life following open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2002;89 (1) 123
PubMed
9.
Wissing  Jvan Vroonhoven  TJSchattenkerk  MEVeen  HFPonsen  RJJeekel  J Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg 1987;74 (8) 738- 741
PubMedArticle
10.
Nordin  PSwedish Hernia Registry. In: Gemzell  T, ed. National Healthcare Quality Registries in Sweden 2007. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions; 2008:49. http://brs.skl.se/brsbibl/kata_documents/doc39135_1.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2010
11.
 Personal identity number.  In: Population Registration in Sweden (SKV 717B Edition 3). Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Tax Agency; 2004:11. http://www.skatteverket.se/download/18.b7f2d0103e5e9ecb08000127/717b03.pdf?posid=1&sv.search.query.allwords=SKV%20704%20english. Accessed November 10, 2010
12.
Nilsson  EHaapaniemi  S Hernia registers and specialization. Surg Clin North Am 1998;78 (6) 1141- 1155, ix
PubMedArticle
13.
Nilsson  EHaapaniemi  S Assessing the quality of hernia repair.  In: Fitzgibbons  RJ  Jr, Greenburg  AG, eds. Nyhus and Condon's Hernia. Vol 5. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:567-573
14.
Cox  DR Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1972;34187- 220
15.
R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.  Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed November 11, 2010
16.
Hodgson  NCMalthaner  RAOstbye  T The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2000;231 (3) 436- 442
PubMedArticle
17.
Israelsson  LAJonsson  T Closure of midline laparotomy incisions with polydioxanone and nylon: the importance of suture technique. Br J Surg 1994;81 (11) 1606- 1608
PubMedArticle
18.
Krukowski  ZHCusick  ELEngeset  JMatheson  NA Polydioxanone or polypropylene for closure of midline abdominal incisions: a prospective comparative clinical trial. Br J Surg 1987;74 (9) 828- 830
PubMedArticle
19.
Seiler  CMBruckner  TDiener  MK  et al.  Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 2009;249 (4) 576- 582
PubMedArticle
20.
van 't Riet  MSteyerberg  EWNellensteyn  JBonjer  HJJeekel  J Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg 2002;89 (11) 1350- 1356
PubMedArticle
21.
Hilgert  REDörner  AWittkugel  O Comparison of polydioxanone (PDS) and polypropylene (Prolene) for Shouldice repair of primary inguinal hernias: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Surg 1999;165 (4) 333- 338
PubMedArticle
22.
Nordin  PHaapaniemi  SKald  ANilsson  E Influence of suture material and surgical technique on risk of reoperation after non-mesh open hernia repair. Br J Surg 2003;90 (8) 1004- 1008
PubMedArticle
23.
Parsons  WB Silk sutures in the repair of hernia. Ann Surg 1937;106 (3) 343- 347
PubMedArticle
24.
Bisgaard  TBay-Nielsen  MChristensen  IJKehlet  H Risk of recurrence 5 years or more after primary Lichtenstein mesh and sutured inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2007;94 (8) 1038- 1040
PubMedArticle
25.
Dalenbäck  JAndersson  CAnesten  B  et al.  Prolene Hernia System, Lichtenstein mesh and plug-and-patch for primary inguinal hernia repair: 3-year outcome of a prospective randomised controlled trial: the BOOP study: bi-layer and connector, on-lay, and on-lay with plug for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2009;13 (2) 121- 129, discussion 231
PubMedArticle
26.
Danielsson  PIsacson  SHansen  MV Randomised study of Lichtenstein compared with Shouldice inguinal hernia repair by surgeons in training. Eur J Surg 1999;165 (1) 49- 53
PubMedArticle
27.
Neumayer  LGiobbie-Hurder  AJonasson  O  et al. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 456 Investigators, Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 2004;350 (18) 1819- 1827
PubMedArticle
28.
Neumayer  LAGawande  AAWang  J  et al. CSP #456 Investigators, Proficiency of surgeons in inguinal hernia repair: effect of experience and age. Ann Surg 2005;242 (3) 344- 352
PubMed
29.
Aasvang  EKehlet  H Chronic postoperative pain: the case of inguinal herniorrhaphy. Br J Anaesth 2005;95 (1) 69- 76
PubMedArticle
30.
Fränneby  USandblom  GNordin  PNyrén  OGunnarsson  U Risk factors for long-term pain after hernia surgery. Ann Surg 2006;244 (2) 212- 219
PubMedArticle
31.
Poobalan  ASBruce  JSmith  WCKing  PMKrukowski  ZHChambers  WA A review of chronic pain after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Clin J Pain 2003;19 (1) 48- 54
PubMedArticle
32.
Campanelli  GHidalgo  MHoeferlin  ARosenberg  JChampault  G Randomized controlled trial of Tisseel for mesh fixation in patients undergoing Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair: the TIMELI trial [abstract 29]. Hernia 2009;13 (suppl 1) S10- S11
33.
Hidalgo  MCastillo  MJEymar  JLHidalgo  A Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty: sutures versus glue. Hernia 2005;9 (3) 242- 244
PubMedArticle
34.
Nguyen  SQDivino  CMBuch  KE  et al.  Postoperative pain after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a prospective comparison of sutures versus tacks. JSLS 2008;12 (2) 113- 116
PubMed
35.
Novik  B Fibrin glue mesh fixation in hernia repair. Ann Surg 2007;246 (5) 906- 908
PubMedArticle
36.
Novik  BHagedorn  SMörk  UBDahlin  KSkullman  SDalenbäck  J Fibrin glue for securing the mesh in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a study with a 40-month prospective follow-up period. Surg Endosc 2006;20 (3) 462- 467
PubMedArticle
37.
Klinge  U Mesh for hernia repair. Br J Surg 2008;95 (5) 539- 540
PubMedArticle
38.
Shamji  MF What do we gain and lose from database studies? Arch Surg 2010;145 (3) 253- 254
PubMedArticle
39.
Haapaniemi  SNilsson  E Recurrence and pain three years after groin hernia repair: validation of postal questionnaire and selective physical examination as a method of follow-up. Eur J Surg 2002;168 (1) 22- 28
PubMedArticle
Original Article
January 2011January 17, 2011

More Recurrences After Hernia Mesh Fixation With Short-term Absorbable SuturesA Registry Study of 82 015 Lichtenstein Repairs

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery, Skaraborg Hospital, Falk[[ouml]]ping (Dr Novik), [[Ouml]]stersund Hospital, [[Ouml]]stersund (Dr Nordin), Skaraborg Hospital, Sk[[ouml]]vde (Dr Skullman), Fr[[ouml]]lunda Specialist Hospital, Gothenburg (Dr Dalenb[[auml]]ck), and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm (Dr Enochsson); Swedish Hernia Registry, [[Ouml]]stersund (Drs Novik, Nordin, and Dalenb[[auml]]ck); Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg (Dr Dalenb[[auml]]ck); and Department of Clinical Science, Interventions, and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm (Drs Novik and Enochsson), Sweden.

Arch Surg. 2011;146(1):12-17. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.302
Abstract

Objective  To assess the effects of different mesh fixation suture materials on the risk of recurrence after Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty.

Design  Observational, population-based registry study.

Setting  Data from the nationwide Swedish Hernia Registry.

Patients  All 82 015 Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasties with sutured mesh fixation in adolescents and adults (15 years or older) from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2009, at surgical units enrolled in the Swedish Hernia Registry.

Interventions  Mesh fixation with nonabsorbable, long-term absorbable, or short-term absorbable sutures.

Main Outcome Measure  Relative risk (RR) for reoperation due to recurrence of a hernia in the same groin during the study period, based on cumulative reoperation rates adjusted for time and confounding variables.

Results  For each study group, RR was calculated with multiregression analysis. There was no significant difference in risk for reoperation after mesh fixation with standard nonabsorbable sutures (RR, 1) or with long-term absorbable sutures (RR, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.55; P = .49). Short-term absorbable sutures, however, more than doubled that risk (RR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.99; P < .001).

Conclusions  With regard to recurrence risk, long-term absorbable sutures are an excellent alternative to permanent sutures for mesh fixation in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. Short-term absorbable sutures entail an independent risk factor for recurrence and should therefore be avoided.

The Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty with “tension-free” mesh reinforcement has become the criterion standard in inguinal hernia repair worldwide.13 In Sweden, the Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty technique accounted for two-thirds of all groin hernioplasties in 2008.4 The procedure is one of the most standardized operations in general surgery. One characteristic and well-defined element of the operation is the fixation of the mesh, which, according to the originators, should be executed with nonabsorbable (ie, permanent) monofilament sutures.

Recently, it has been suggested that by substituting the mesh-anchoring sutures entirely with absorbable ones, the surgeon may reduce the patient's risk of developing chronic postoperative pain.59 Whether such a policy would affect the recurrence rate has, to our knowledge, not been thoroughly investigated.

Recurrence rates in modern hernia treatment depend on a wide range of risk factors unrelated to the mesh fixation. Design of a study to detect a probably small, but clinically relevant, difference in the risk for recurrence exclusively related to the mesh fixation material is thus a challenge. A randomized controlled trial may be both difficult and time-consuming to perform to answer this question.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relative risk (RR) for reoperation due to hernia recurrence in cases when the mesh is secured mainly with long-term or short-term absorbable sutures, as compared with standard nonabsorbable sutures. To examine this, we analyzed data pertaining to the reoperation rate of nearly all Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasties performed in Sweden during an 8-year period prospectively and consecutively registered in the nationwide Swedish Hernia Registry (SHR).10

METHODS
DATA FROM THE SHR

The SHR has almost complete nationwide coverage of groin (inguinal and femoral) hernioplasties in adolescents and adults. For every patient, the registration protocol mandates a number of variables to be prospectively recorded, including details regarding surgical technique (Table 1). The large sample size acts to minimize the risk of random error, thus ensuring good precision, even in subanalyses.

In Sweden, patient information is registered under the state-assigned personal identity numbers unique for each citizen and used for all health care and other governmental concerns.11 Thus, patients can be monitored annually to adjust data according to life tables for deaths and to link recurrent hernia repairs to any previous operations.

The SHR defines reoperation of recurrence as any kind of hernia repair in a groin in which a hernia had previously been repaired when the patient was 15 years or older. This definition applies even in the event that the primary and recurrent hernias are anatomically different, eg, if the first repair was for an inguinal hernia and the reoperation addressed a femoral defect. More information about the SHR, including its data recording and validation, is available in earlier publications12,13 and on Web sites.4,10

In 2002, the SHR introduced a new variable: the means by which hernia mesh is affixed (Table 2). The study reported here was based on SHR data for the 8 years after that addition (January 1, 2002–December 31, 2009). Inclusion criteria were Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty procedures in which the mesh was fastened mainly with nonabsorbable, long-term absorbable, or short-term absorbable sutures, which define the 3 study groups in this investigation.

This study was granted official approval status by the Research Ethics Committee of Stockholm University.

STATISTICS

To calculate the cumulative risk of recurrent surgery throughout the study, the primary endpoints for analysis were the date for reoperation of a hernia in the same groin or the date of death. Subsequently, the RRs for reoperation were computed for each of the 3 suture groups by Cox multiple regression analysis14 to adjust for potential confounders (Table 1). For the comparison, standard fixation was chosen as reference (RR,  1). An RR greater than 1 signified a larger risk for reoperation than for nonabsorbable sutures, whereas an RR less than 1 indicated a smaller risk. The statistics were calculated with R (open-source free software) version 2.7.2.15

RESULTS

During the study period, the SHR recorded 130 359 mesh and nonmesh repairs of groin hernias in adolescents and adults (aged 15 years or older), constituting more than 95% of all hernioplasties in Sweden. Of these, 82 015 met the inclusion criteria, (ie, Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty with mesh fixation by sutures) (Figure 1).

In the majority of the procedures, the mesh was secured with standard nonabsorbable sutures (n = 78 867). The 2 study groups with long-term absorbable (n = 1938) and short-term absorbable (n = 1210) mesh fixation sutures represent less common modifications (Table 2).

The reoperation rates are listed in Table 3 and the cumulative risks are displayed in Figure 2.

The RRs for reoperation are given in Table 4. In comparison with permanent sutures (RR, 1), mesh fixation with short-term absorbable sutures more than doubled a patient's RR for reoperation (RR, 2.23). The reoperation rates for the nonabsorbable and long-term absorbable suture groups were similar.

COMMENT

This large, population-based study was designed to detect possible risk differences for the outcome of clinical interest (recurrence), depending on the type of mesh fixation suture material used for the Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. For practical reasons, we used a surrogate end point (reoperation due to recurrence). Our data demonstrate that the use of short-term absorbable sutures more than doubled the reoperation risk, whereas long-term absorbable sutures manifested no significant risk.

The follow-up period ranged from 0 to 8 years. During the study period, the cumulative reoperation curves for all 3 study groups were fairly linear and constant. Whether this pattern will prevail is yet to be seen.

There are 2 primary strengths of this study. First, the 3 study groups comprise almost all patients treated in Sweden with the procedure of interest during the study period. As the SHR has nationwide coverage and documents virtually every adolescent and adult inguinal and femoral hernia operation conducted in Sweden, it compiles an unselected and unbiased database.

Second, our findings are in line with results obtained from studies on abdominal wound closure, where short-term absorbable sutures have been shown to constitute an independent risk factor for incisional hernia formation and long-term absorbable sutures do not.1620 In addition, research on nonmesh groin herniorrhaphy has demonstrated that short-term absorbable sutures raise the recurrence risk, whereas long-term absorbable sutures do not.2123

One may consider a weakness of our study to be uneven distribution of the 3 groups, with less than 4% of the procedures divided into the 2 absorbable suture groups (Figure 1). Notwithstanding these modest percentages, these groups collectively comprise 3148 repairs performed by several hundred surgeons. Therefore, we consider the risk that individual practices of attending surgeons will manifest as statistical outliers and skew the overall results to be minimal.

Given that this study was not a randomized controlled trial, it provides only a descriptive account of surgical outcomes documented for nearly the entire patient population of a single country. As such, it makes no attempt to control for or even declare the reasons underlying decisions to deviate from standard use of nonabsorbable suture fixation. Thus, biased patient selection is a possibility that might confound determination of the recurrence risk. However, multiregression analysis adjusts for essential disparities between study groups concerning other risk factors.

A strength of the Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty procedure, in contrast to other methods of hernia repair, is that it enables even nonexpert surgeons to repair groin hernias with few recurrences.4,2428 In recent years, however, the issue of chronic postoperative pain has been addressed. Several authorities in the field of hernia surgery have argued that posthernioplasty pain should be a greater cause for concern than should recurrence rates.2931 Tissue-penetrating anchoring of mesh is recognized to be a plausible cause of chronic discomfort.3136 Removal of the permanent fixation material can thus sometimes be an effective remedy.5,6,8 Further studies regarding whether absorbable mesh fixation may reduce the incidence of persistent postoperative pain need to be performed. It is nevertheless important that measures with the intention to reduce the risk for chronic pain do not increase the recurrence risk.

When launched in 1992, the primary objective of the SHR was to assess variables associated with recurrence risk. Since then, the chronic postoperative pain issue has achieved increasingly more attention worldwide. As shown in Table 1, the SHR has not routinely recorded data concerning chronic pain beyond 30 days. Therefore, we regret that the SHR at this time does not possess data suitable to assess causal relationships between mesh fixation and chronic pain. However, for some time, the SHR has made efforts to develop a new pain evaluation protocol that is simple enough to be accepted by Swedish surgeons for use in their daily practice and, at the same time, complex enough to be scientifically useful and valid. A pilot study with a test protocol is currently being conducted in a limited number of hospitals.

To our knowledge, there have been no previous studies investigating whether a shift from permanent to absorbable mesh fixation will increase the recurrence rate after a hernioplasty. We hypothesized that for some patients, the mesh fixation material will play a crucial role in the long-term outcome of their hernioplasty. Still, the abundance of other plausible recurrence risk factors, some of them potentially more influential than the choice of suture material, makes it difficult to determine which one was the principal factor for hernia recurrence in each case. Many might consider a randomized controlled trial to be the most appropriate study design to assess the importance of mesh fixation suture material; however, that would necessitate an enormous number of patients and several years of observation time, entailing an economically and logistically formidable, if not impossible, project. We chose, therefore, to conduct a registry study rather than a randomized controlled trial because recurrence constitutes a rare event, one furthermore influenced by many risk factors. We believe that a study based on data derived from a large nationwide registry has better prerequisites for cost-effectiveness and valid statistical inference.37 In a recent commentary in the Archives,38 advantages of national registry studies were noted: very large patient samples increase study power and facilitate multivariate analysis, and the broad range of physicians involved in treatment strengthens the external validity (generalizability) of the results (ie, the outcome is likely to reflect what may be expected in routine practice).

Large numbers of cases, such as the 3 groups studied here, are sine qua non for adequate multiregression. There were very few less-frequent alternatives for mesh fixation (glue, staples/tacks, other/unspecified, or no fixation) in the SHR, and the number of reoperations was even smaller. Therefore, these rarities recorded in the SHR may not yet be considered adequate for appropriate statistical inference regarding reoperation risk.

The exact date of a recurrence is an unsuitable end point in hernia studies because it can only be arbitrarily defined and still rarely be pinpointed. Even in prospective trials, the diagnosis (of recurrence) is always made in retrospect. Therefore, the recurrence date is not recorded in the SHR or in hernia studies. Instead, since the SHR registers both the primary and recurrence operation dates, we selected the day of reoperation as the primary end point. This enabled precise calculation of the reoperation rate, which we consider an adequate surrogate factor for recurrence rate.

From the patient's perspective, a recurrent hernia evolves in the following manner: anatomic recurrence, clinical manifestation, diagnosis, and potential reoperation. This evolution varies per individual and may span from hours to decades. This might be one of several plausible explanations for the observation in Figure 2 that the reoperation curves continue to separate long after one would expect the absorbable sutures to be gone. Furthermore, reoperation is not performed on a significant number of recurrent hernias, which sometimes are not even diagnosed. Thus, the recurrence rate will always be higher than the reoperation rate. At any given time, the true rate of clinically detectable recurrences can be estimated to be approximately 3 times higher than the SHR reoperation rate.39

The delay from recurrence to reoperation is most likely dependent on factors similar for all 3 study groups. When comparing the alternative fixation materials, it is therefore reasonable to assume the calculated RR for a reoperation to be approximately the same as the true RR for a recurrence (in this case, as compared with standard nonabsorbable sutures).

CONCLUSIONS

In most cases, all 3 types of suture material worked well for the mesh fixation after the limited follow-up time. Still, for some patients, short-term absorbable sutures seemed to constitute an independent cause of failure. At this time, we have no clinical method to detect preoperatively the group of patients for whom the choice of fixation material may make a difference. Furthermore, so far there is no scientific evidence to recommend short-term absorbable sutures to alleviate the risk for chronic postoperative pain.

To minimize hernia recurrence following the Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty, we recommend either nonabsorbable or long-term absorbable sutures for the mesh fixation in all cases and advise against short-term absorbable sutures.

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Bengt Novik, MD, Department of Surgery, Skaraborg Hospital, SE-521 85 Falköping, Sweden (bengt.novik@ki.se).

Accepted for Publication: July 26, 2010.

Author Contributions: Dr Novik had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Novik, Nordin, Skullman, and Dalenbäck. Acquisition of data: Novik and Nordin. Analysis and interpretation of data: Novik, Nordin, Skullman, Dalenbäck, and Enochsson. Drafting of the manuscript: Novik and Dalenbäck. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Novik, Nordin, Skullman, Dalenbäck, and Enochsson. Statistical analysis: Nordin. Obtained funding: Novik and Skullman. Administrative, technical, and material support: Novik, Nordin, Skullman, Dalenbäck, and Enochsson. Study supervision: Novik, Nordin, Dalenbäck, and Enochsson.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: The project was principally funded by the Western Region Research Council, the Skaraborg Hospital Research and Development Center, and the Swedish Hernia Registry, all of which are tax-financed, nonprofit institutions. No suture manufacturer was affiliated with this study.

Previous Presentation: The published article is an updated version of the study, as orally presented at the 30th European Hernia Society Congress; May 10, 2008; Seville, Spain.

Additional Contributions: We are indebted to Eva Hagel, MA, at the Swedish Hernia Registry, Oncological Center, Umeå University Hospital for invaluable statistics discussions. She also retrieved the SHR data and performed the statistical calculations. Thanks to Kyra Landzelius, PhD, at the Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg/Chalmers Technical University for English editing.

References
1.
Amid  PK Groin hernia repair: open techniques. World J Surg 2005;29 (8) 1046- 1051
PubMedArticle
2.
Kurzer  MBelsham  PAKark  AE The Lichtenstein repair for groin hernias. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83 (5) 1099- 1117
PubMedArticle
3.
Simons  MPAufenacker  TBay-Nielsen  M  et al.  European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 2009;13 (4) 343- 403
PubMedArticle
4.
Nordin  P Methods of repair.  In: Swedish Hernia Registry Annual Report 2008 [in Swedish]. Östersund, Sweden: Swedish Hernia Registry; 2009:17-21. http://www.vinkcancer.se. Accessed November 10, 2010
5.
Courtney  CADuffy  KSerpell  MGO’Dwyer  PJ Outcome of patients with severe chronic pain following repair of groin hernia. Br J Surg 2002;89 (10) 1310- 1314
PubMedArticle
6.
Nienhuijs  SWRosman  CStrobbe  LJWolff  ABleichrodt  RP An overview of the features influencing pain after inguinal hernia repair. Int J Surg 2008;6 (4) 351- 356
PubMedArticle
7.
Paajanen  H Do absorbable mesh sutures cause less chronic pain than nonabsorbable sutures after Lichtenstein inguinal herniorraphy? Hernia 2002;6 (1) 26- 28
PubMedArticle
8.
Silen  W Chronic pain and quality of life following open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2002;89 (1) 123
PubMed
9.
Wissing  Jvan Vroonhoven  TJSchattenkerk  MEVeen  HFPonsen  RJJeekel  J Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg 1987;74 (8) 738- 741
PubMedArticle
10.
Nordin  PSwedish Hernia Registry. In: Gemzell  T, ed. National Healthcare Quality Registries in Sweden 2007. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions; 2008:49. http://brs.skl.se/brsbibl/kata_documents/doc39135_1.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2010
11.
 Personal identity number.  In: Population Registration in Sweden (SKV 717B Edition 3). Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Tax Agency; 2004:11. http://www.skatteverket.se/download/18.b7f2d0103e5e9ecb08000127/717b03.pdf?posid=1&sv.search.query.allwords=SKV%20704%20english. Accessed November 10, 2010
12.
Nilsson  EHaapaniemi  S Hernia registers and specialization. Surg Clin North Am 1998;78 (6) 1141- 1155, ix
PubMedArticle
13.
Nilsson  EHaapaniemi  S Assessing the quality of hernia repair.  In: Fitzgibbons  RJ  Jr, Greenburg  AG, eds. Nyhus and Condon's Hernia. Vol 5. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:567-573
14.
Cox  DR Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1972;34187- 220
15.
R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.  Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed November 11, 2010
16.
Hodgson  NCMalthaner  RAOstbye  T The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2000;231 (3) 436- 442
PubMedArticle
17.
Israelsson  LAJonsson  T Closure of midline laparotomy incisions with polydioxanone and nylon: the importance of suture technique. Br J Surg 1994;81 (11) 1606- 1608
PubMedArticle
18.
Krukowski  ZHCusick  ELEngeset  JMatheson  NA Polydioxanone or polypropylene for closure of midline abdominal incisions: a prospective comparative clinical trial. Br J Surg 1987;74 (9) 828- 830
PubMedArticle
19.
Seiler  CMBruckner  TDiener  MK  et al.  Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 2009;249 (4) 576- 582
PubMedArticle
20.
van 't Riet  MSteyerberg  EWNellensteyn  JBonjer  HJJeekel  J Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg 2002;89 (11) 1350- 1356
PubMedArticle
21.
Hilgert  REDörner  AWittkugel  O Comparison of polydioxanone (PDS) and polypropylene (Prolene) for Shouldice repair of primary inguinal hernias: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Surg 1999;165 (4) 333- 338
PubMedArticle
22.
Nordin  PHaapaniemi  SKald  ANilsson  E Influence of suture material and surgical technique on risk of reoperation after non-mesh open hernia repair. Br J Surg 2003;90 (8) 1004- 1008
PubMedArticle
23.
Parsons  WB Silk sutures in the repair of hernia. Ann Surg 1937;106 (3) 343- 347
PubMedArticle
24.
Bisgaard  TBay-Nielsen  MChristensen  IJKehlet  H Risk of recurrence 5 years or more after primary Lichtenstein mesh and sutured inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2007;94 (8) 1038- 1040
PubMedArticle
25.
Dalenbäck  JAndersson  CAnesten  B  et al.  Prolene Hernia System, Lichtenstein mesh and plug-and-patch for primary inguinal hernia repair: 3-year outcome of a prospective randomised controlled trial: the BOOP study: bi-layer and connector, on-lay, and on-lay with plug for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2009;13 (2) 121- 129, discussion 231
PubMedArticle
26.
Danielsson  PIsacson  SHansen  MV Randomised study of Lichtenstein compared with Shouldice inguinal hernia repair by surgeons in training. Eur J Surg 1999;165 (1) 49- 53
PubMedArticle
27.
Neumayer  LGiobbie-Hurder  AJonasson  O  et al. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 456 Investigators, Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 2004;350 (18) 1819- 1827
PubMedArticle
28.
Neumayer  LAGawande  AAWang  J  et al. CSP #456 Investigators, Proficiency of surgeons in inguinal hernia repair: effect of experience and age. Ann Surg 2005;242 (3) 344- 352
PubMed
29.
Aasvang  EKehlet  H Chronic postoperative pain: the case of inguinal herniorrhaphy. Br J Anaesth 2005;95 (1) 69- 76
PubMedArticle
30.
Fränneby  USandblom  GNordin  PNyrén  OGunnarsson  U Risk factors for long-term pain after hernia surgery. Ann Surg 2006;244 (2) 212- 219
PubMedArticle
31.
Poobalan  ASBruce  JSmith  WCKing  PMKrukowski  ZHChambers  WA A review of chronic pain after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Clin J Pain 2003;19 (1) 48- 54
PubMedArticle
32.
Campanelli  GHidalgo  MHoeferlin  ARosenberg  JChampault  G Randomized controlled trial of Tisseel for mesh fixation in patients undergoing Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair: the TIMELI trial [abstract 29]. Hernia 2009;13 (suppl 1) S10- S11
33.
Hidalgo  MCastillo  MJEymar  JLHidalgo  A Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty: sutures versus glue. Hernia 2005;9 (3) 242- 244
PubMedArticle
34.
Nguyen  SQDivino  CMBuch  KE  et al.  Postoperative pain after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a prospective comparison of sutures versus tacks. JSLS 2008;12 (2) 113- 116
PubMed
35.
Novik  B Fibrin glue mesh fixation in hernia repair. Ann Surg 2007;246 (5) 906- 908
PubMedArticle
36.
Novik  BHagedorn  SMörk  UBDahlin  KSkullman  SDalenbäck  J Fibrin glue for securing the mesh in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a study with a 40-month prospective follow-up period. Surg Endosc 2006;20 (3) 462- 467
PubMedArticle
37.
Klinge  U Mesh for hernia repair. Br J Surg 2008;95 (5) 539- 540
PubMedArticle
38.
Shamji  MF What do we gain and lose from database studies? Arch Surg 2010;145 (3) 253- 254
PubMedArticle
39.
Haapaniemi  SNilsson  E Recurrence and pain three years after groin hernia repair: validation of postal questionnaire and selective physical examination as a method of follow-up. Eur J Surg 2002;168 (1) 22- 28
PubMedArticle
×