Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Inguinal Hernia | Study protocol

BIOLAP: biological versus synthetic mesh in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: study protocol for a randomized, multicenter, self-controlled clinical trial

Authors: C. S. Seefeldt, J. S. Meyer, J. Knievel, A. Rieger, R. Geißen, R. Lefering, M. M. Heiss

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical operations globally; more than 20 million groin herniae are repaired annually worldwide. Recurrence after an inguinal hernia operation is a considerable clinical problem. Another remaining problem after hernia surgery is the occurrence of chronic pain. Up to now, the use of synthetic meshes is the standard procedure, but there is increasing evidence that biological meshes could be advantageous concerning the occurrence of chronic pain due to different postoperative remodeling, without the disadvantages of a life-long implant.
We hypothesize that the use of a biological mesh reduces postoperative pain without being inferior in terms of recurrence rate compared with a synthetic mesh.

Methods/design

The trial compares possible the advantages of biological matrices to synthetic meshes in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Four hundred and ninety-six patients with primary bilateral inguinal herniae in 20 German hernia centers will be enrolled. Biological mesh is used for one of the bilateral herniae, the other side will be operated on with a synthetic mesh. Randomization will preset which side is repaired with which material and trial participants will not be informed about the location of each mesh type. The primary endpoints will be intensity of postoperative local pain and the incidence of recurrent hernia after 2 years.

Discussion

There is no reasonably sized trial that assesses the use of biological meshes in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Our self-controlled trial design allows a direct comparison of the two meshes with very few confounding factors as well as minimizing the exclusion criteria. As we compare CE-certified medical devices in their designated indication the medical risk is not different compared to routine clinical care. Due to the common nature of bilateral inguinal hernia, a high recruitment rate is achievable. Because guidelines for hernia repair have stressed the need for reliable data on the already frequent use of biological meshes, we can expect our trial to have a direct implication on hernia-repair standards.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00010178. Registered on 16.June.2016. BIOLAP underwent full external peer review as part of the funding process with the German Research Foundation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Fitzgibbons RJJ, Forse RA. Groin hernias in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):756–63.CrossRef
2.
Primatesta P, Goldacre M. Inguinal hernia repair: incidence of elective and emergency surgery, readmission and mortality. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25(4):835–9.CrossRef
3.
Bay-Nielsen M, et al. Quality assessment of 26 304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet. 2001;358(9288):1124–8.CrossRef
4.
Murray CJL, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2197–223.CrossRef
5.
Jacob D, et al. Perioperative outcome of unilateral versus bilateral inguinal hernia repairs in TAPP technique: analysis of 15,176 cases from the Herniamed Registry. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3733–40.CrossRef
6.
HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia. 2018;22(1):1–165.CrossRef
7.
Macintyre IMC. Best practice in groin hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2003;90(2):131–2.CrossRef
8.
Pfeffer F, et al. Operation der beidseitigen Leistenhernie—Sequenziell oder simultan? [Repair of bilateral inguinal hernias—sequential or simultaneous?]. Zentralblatt Chirurgie. 2008;133(5):446–51.CrossRef
9.
10.
Berger D. Evidence-based hernia treatment in adults. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2016;113(9):150–8.
11.
Simons MP, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2009;13(4):343–403.CrossRef
12.
Scott N, et al. Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia; 2002. p. CD002197.
13.
EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration. Repair of groin hernia with synthetic mesh: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2002;235(3):322–32.CrossRef
14.
Bochicchio GV, et al. Biologic vs synthetic inguinal hernia repair: 1-year results of a randomized double-blinded trial. J Am College Surg. 2014;218(4):751–7.CrossRef
15.
Agresta F, Bedin N. Transabdominal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: is there a place for biological mesh? Hernia. 2008;12(6):609–12.CrossRef
16.
17.
Fang Z, et al. Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85(12):910–6.CrossRef
18.
Sauerland S, et al. Fingers, hands or patients? The concept of independent observations. J Hand Surg. 2003;28(2):102–5.CrossRef
19.
Bittner R, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal Hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(9):2773–843.CrossRef
20.
Miserez M, et al. The European Hernia Society groin hernia classication: simple and easy to remember. Hernia. 2007;11(2):113–6.CrossRef
21.
Köckerling F, et al. How long do we need to follow-up our hernia patients to find the real recurrence rate? Front Surg. 2015;2:24.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
BIOLAP: biological versus synthetic mesh in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: study protocol for a randomized, multicenter, self-controlled clinical trial
Authors
C. S. Seefeldt
J. S. Meyer
J. Knievel
A. Rieger
R. Geißen
R. Lefering
M. M. Heiss
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Inguinal Hernia
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3122-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Internet-based interpersonal psychotherapy for stress, anxiety, and depression in prenatal women: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of CBT vs antipsychotics vs both in 14–18-year-olds: Managing Adolescent first episode Psychosis: a feasibility study (MAPS)

Research

Recruitment of men to a multi-centre diabetes prevention trial: an evaluation of traditional and online promotional strategies

Methodology

Optimising recruitment into trials using an internal pilot

Study protocol

Use of a smartphone app combined with gamification to increase the level of physical activity of adults and older adults: protocol of a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial

Study protocol

Evaluation of the impact of levothyroxine treatment on the psychomotor developmental status of three-year-old children born to mothers with mild thyroid impairment; Tehran Thyroid and pregnancy study: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial