POLY-PROPHYLENE MESH OR ULTRA PRO MESH IS BETTER? IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS AND POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS. A RANDOMIZED CONTROL STUDY

ABSTRACT
Study design: randomized control study in which 60 patients were divided into PHS and UHS groups.
Material and Method: sixty patients were included in the study after informed consent into two groups PHS and UHS.
This study was conducted from 1st
 august 2015 to 1st
 September 2016.
Selection criteria: Male patients above 25 years of age with unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia were included.
Recurrent inguinal hernia, irreducible hernia, BPH and Diabetic patients were excluded from the study.
Surgical Procedure: all surgeries were done under general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia according to anesthesia
indications.
Results: total of sixty patients data was collected in standardized proforma. Age range was 25-70 years with mean age
of 44 years. 45 patients were between 25 and 50 years and 15 were between 51 and 70 years of age. Right inguinal
hernia was present in 22 patients while left inguinal hernia in 38 patients. 48 patients having indirect inguinal hernia
while 12 patients having direct inguinal hernia.
ASA Score: mild pain was common in both groups (33.3-40%), moderate pain (66.6-60%). VAS was almost same in
both groups.
Scrotal heamatoma was slightly more in PHS group (13.3%) while seroma was more in UHS group (10%). Other com-
plication were similar in both groups.
Key words: PHS (Polyprophylene mesh hernia system), UHS (Ultra Pro Mesh hernia system)