Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of mesh fixation techniques for laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia surgeries

Abstract

Purpose

This study reports economic evaluation of mesh fixation in open and laparoscopic hernia repair from a prospective real-world cohort study, using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA).

Methods

A prospective real-world cohort study was conducted in two university-based hospitals in Thailand from November 2018 to 2019. Patient data on hernia features, operative approaches, clinical outcomes, associated cost data, and quality of life were collected. Models were used to determine each group’s treatment effect, potential outcome means, and average treatment effects. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to evaluate the incremental risk of hernia recurrences.

Results

The 261 patients in this study were divided into six groups: laparoscopic with tack (LT, n = 47), glue (LG, n = 26), and self-gripping mesh (LSG, n = 30), and open with suture (OS, n = 117), glue (OG, n = 18), and self-gripping mesh (OSG, n = 23). Hernia recurrence was most common in LSG. The mean utility score was highest in OG and OSG (both 0.99). Treatment costs were generally higher for laparoscopic than open procedures. The cost-effectiveness plane for utility and hernia recurrence identified LSG as least cost effective. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves identified OG as having the highest probability of being cost effective at willingness to pay levels between $0 and $3,300, followed by OSG.

Conclusion

Given the similarity of hernia recurrence among all major procedures, the cost of surgery may impact the decision. According to our findings, open hernia repair with adhesive or self-gripping mesh appears most cost-effective.

Peer Review reports

Background

Inguinal hernia is a common global condition, resulting in more than 20 million surgical repairs annually [1]. A hernia repair with mesh graft is considered the standard of care for adult symptomatic patients following the international guidelines for groin hernia management [1] and can be performed using an open or laparoscopic approach. The use of mesh repair strengthens the inguinal floor, reducing the risk of hernia recurrence due to its proximity to the herniated triangle. Several surgical interventions are commonly used, namely, open inguinal hernia repair [(OHR; i.e., Lichtenstein’s repair] and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [(LHR) i.e., transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) and total extra-peritoneal repair (TEP)]. According to recent inguinal hernia repair guidelines, mesh fixations are recommended in patients with large direct hernias (M3-EHS classification) [1]. For OHR and LHR, suture and tack are commonly used for mesh fixation, respectively. As alternatives, non-penetrating or atraumatic fixation techniques have been proposed, including glue and self-gripping mesh (SGM).

However, complications following mesh fixation include local tissue trauma and nerve damage through entrapment, [2] erosion, [3] meshoma formation, [4] tack hernias, [5] chronic pain, [6, 7] and infection [8]. Various mesh fixation methods have been developed for open and laparoscopic approaches, such as tack, glue, and self-gripping mesh (SGM). The efficacy and adverse effects for open and laparoscopic mesh fixation methods have been compared using multiple meta-analyses, [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19] which were summarized in an umbrella review indicating that various options are largely similar in terms of hernia recurrence and adverse events; therefore, the technique of choice may be influenced by other considerations such as cost. Therefore, we conducted an economic evaluation of real-world data from a prospective cohort to evaluate both cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility (CUA) of mesh fixation in open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Methods

Study sites and design

A 12-month prospective cohort study was conducted at the tertiary referral centers of Ramathibodi and Vajira Hospitals, Bangkok, Thailand, following the methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes [20]. Patients were eligible if aged > 18 years, were diagnosed with primary uncomplicated inguinal hernia, underwent OHR and LHR with any mesh fixation approach, had a pre-anesthesia ASA Physical Status Classification of I–III, and were not immunocompromised. This study was approved by the Vajira Institutional Review Board (COA No. 160/2561) and the Committee on Human Rights Related to Research Involving Human Subjects, Ramathibodi Hospital (COA No. MURA2018/986).

Interventions of interest

Patients were divided into six intervention groups based on the actual received operative and mesh fixation techniques: LHR-tack (LT, reference), LHR-glue (LG), LHR-self-gripping mesh (LSG), OHR-suture (OS, reference), OHR-glue (OG), and OHR-self-gripping mesh (OSG). The selected techniques were based on discussion and decision between surgeons and patients without researcher manipulation. In LT group, the metallic tack was used for mesh fixation with 3 locations, i.e., pubic symphysis, anterior abdominal wall medial, and lateral to the epigastric vessels. Data on age, sex, body mass index (BMI), underlying disease (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, joint disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic pulmonary disease, and obesity), and potentially risky patient behaviors such as weight-lifting activities/exercise or constipation were collected.

Cost of illness data

The study evaluated individual patient-level data associated with hernia treatment expenditure. From a hospital perspective, direct medical costs were retrieved from hospital invoices including room fee, operative, anesthetic, laboratory, medical, and imaging charges. From a societal perspective, direct nonmedical and indirect costs were also collected through patient and caregiver interviews. Direct nonmedical costs included transportation, accommodation, and extra-meal fees, whereas indirect costs included patient and caregiver productivity loss calculated from days lost from work multiplied by salary.

Data were collected through patient interviews at three time points: preoperatively and postoperatively for the short term (discharge day, 1–2 weeks, 1 month) and long-term (6 months). Patients were followed up after discharge at out-patient clinic or by telephone, where appropriated. The time horizon for the utility was defined as short term (1-week postoperatively) and long-term (6 months postoperatively); hernia recurrence was assessed at study termination. The cost estimation for hernia recurrence was considered based on the OHR and LHR conventional mesh fixation. Due to the short horizon time, discount rates were not applied in the analyses.

All currencies were obtained in Thai Baht and converted to US dollars (USD) using the Bank of Thailand exchange rate on December 30, 2020 (30.014 Baht/US Dollar) [21].

Clinical and utility outcomes

The primary clinical outcome was hernia recurrence evaluated through physical examination and/or radiographic investigation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain measured using the visual analog score (VAS), hematoma, urine retention, surgical site infection (SSI), and seroma. The utility outcome was determined using the Thai EQ-5D-5L [22] and Euro-Quality of life visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) questionnaires [22]. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were previously validated in a Thai population, assessing five health dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Responses generated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were converted into a utility score based on a Thai reference set; the utility outcome determined using the Thai EQ-5D-5L was developed by a research team from the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment program, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand [23, 24]. The utility outcome yields an index score anchored at 0 (dead) and 1 (full health). All outcomes were collected 1 week preoperatively and 1 month and 6 months postoperatively.

Statistical analysis

Data were described using frequency and mean (standard deviation [SD]) for categorical and continuous data, respectively. Patient baseline characteristics (age, sex, BMI, and underlying disease status) and baseline utility scores were compared among the six intervention groups using Chi-squared (or exact test where appropriate) and one-way analysis of variance/regression for categorical and continuous data, respectively. Variables with a p-value < 0.1 were considered further for inclusion within adjusted regression models.

Intervention effects were assessed using the following approaches: First, a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model assessed the treatment effects by fitting intervention groups against utility scores (measured at discharge day, 1 week, and 6 months postoperatively) with adjustment for covariables identified from the univariate analysis. Coefficients (i.e., mean difference [MD]) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were estimated and tested. Second, the treatment effect was considered with adjustment of treatment assignment based on the following steps: the treatment model was established using a multi-logit model to estimate the probability of receiving each treatment by fitting covariables to the treatment variable. An outcome (utility score) model was created using an inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment. Covariables in both the treatment and outcome models included age, sex, BMI, weight-lifting activities/exercise, and underlying diseases (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, urination difficulties, and constipation). Only significant covariables were retained within the final models. The potential outcome means (POMs) and average treatment effects (ATEs) were estimated with 95% CIs. Finally, the treatment effect model assumptions were evaluated to balance the distribution of covariables and treatment overlap.

An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by dividing the incremental cost with the incremental effect using tack as the reference for LHR and sutures as the reference for OHR. We used both short- and long-term time horizons for the utility outcome; however, only the long-term time horizon was used for hernia recurrence.

To evaluate the models’ robustness and the effects of parameter uncertainty, Monte-Carlo bootstrapping (× 1,000) was simulated to plot cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for six interventions using hospital and societal perspectives. All clinical and utility outcomes were analyzed using STATA version 16.1, and CUA was performed using MS Excel 2016 and TreeAge Pro 2020 [25].

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 261 patients were included during the study period. Demographic and baseline characteristics of patients for each group are described and compared with intervention groups (Table 1). The mean age was 64.41 (SD: 14.24) years, 245 patients (93.87%) were male, and the mean BMI was 23.47 (SD: 3.40) kg/m2. Only age and constipation rate significantly varied among intervention groups.

Table 1 Baseline patient characteristics

Hernia data and operative outcome

There was a total of 245 and 16 patients with unilateral and bilateral inguinal hernias, respectively, including 212, 15, 2, and 49 indirect, direct, femoral, and combined hernias, respectively. Of the 103 LHR hernia repairs, 47, 26, and 30 patients received LT, LG, and LSG, respectively. OHR was performed in 148 patients; 117, 18, and 23 patients received OS, OG, and OSG, respectively.

The overall mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 75.42 (SD: 32.40) min and 10.74 (SD: 13.90) ml, respectively. The mean overall hospital stay was 3.82 (SD: 1.40) days, with a mean postoperative hospital stay of 2.63 (SD: 1.20) days. The mean postoperative pain VAS scores at 4 and 24 h were 6.75 (SD: 1.70) and 3.54 (SD: 1.60), respectively.

Individual postoperative complications (such as urinary retention, wound seroma, hematoma, and SSI) were minimal and were therefore combined into a composite complication endpoint. Hernia recurrence occurred in 4.60% (95% CI: 2.39, 7.89), chronic groin pain at 6 months was reported in 9.96% (95% CI: 6.61, 14.25), and composite complications were reported in 27.6% (95% CI: 22.25, 33.43) of the study cohort (see Table 2).

Table 2 Clinical and utility outcomes among 6 intervention groups

Utility outcome

The overall mean utilities of patients at preoperation, discharge, and postoperative 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months were 0.94 (SD: 0.08), 0.90 (SD: 0.09), 0.97 (SD: 0.06), 0.99 (SD: 0.02), and 0.99 (SD: 0.03), respectively; this is consistent with minor surgery and not really impacting perfect health (utility score of 1). The mean corresponding EQ-VAS scores for these time points were 75.69 (SD: 11.72), 74.63 (SD: 12.79), 81.40 (SD: 11.51), 87.85 (SD: 8.78), and 93.46 (SD: 7.97). The mean utility scores and EQ-VAS by intervention group are also provided (Table 2).

The overall mean utility was compared among intervention groups using a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model adjusted for age and constipation at baseline. The overall mean utility scores were 0.966, 0.947, 0.972, 0.970, 0.945, and 0.939 for LT, LG, LSG, OS, OG, and OSG, respectively, with only LG, OG, and OS groups being significantly different to LT with MD of − 0.019 (95%CI: − 0.033, − 0.004), − 0.021 (95%CI: − 0.037, − 0.004), and − 0.026 (95%CI: − 0.041, − 0.011), respectively (Supplementary Table 1). Furthermore, linear comparisons of the overall mean utility scores among groups indicated MDs of − 0.002 (95%CI: − 0.020, 0.016) for OG versus LG and − 0.033 (95%CI: − 0.049, − 0.016) for OSG versus LSG.

A treatment effect model compared overall utility scores among six interventions. The balance of covariables among each of the intervention groups was assessed by exploring the distribution of covariables across all six interventions. Raw and standardized MDs and variance ratios for covariables were calculated based on intervention. After adjusting for covariables in the treatment effect models, standardized MDs were reduced to near zero, with variance ratios close to one (except for LSG with SMD of − 0.505, and variance ratio of zero) representing a reasonable balance across groups (Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2).

The following POMs were estimated: LT: 0.966 (95%CI: 0.959, 0.973), LG: 0.951 (95%CI: 0.938, 0.964), LSG: 0.970 (95%CI: 0.956, 0.985), OS: 0.969 (95%CI: 0.964, 0.975), OG: 0.941 (95%CI: 0.927, 0.955), and OSG: 0.932 (95%CI: 0.913, 0.951) (see Supplement Table 3). The ATEs were also estimated: LSG: 0.004 (95%CI: − 0.012, 0.019), OS: 0.04 (95%CI: − 0.004, 0.011), LG: − 0.015 (95%CI: − 0.029, − 0.0004), OG: − 0.025 (95%CI: − 0.040, − 0.010), and OSG: − 0.334 (95%CI: − 0.054, − 0.014) relative to LT, with the latter three indicating significantly lower utility scores.

Table 3 Cost data among 6 intervention groups
Table 4 Cost-utility analysis among 6 intervention groups
Table 5 Cost-effectiveness analysis on hernia recurrence among 6 intervention groups

Cost outcomes

From a hospital perspective, the mean costs for short- and long-term outcomes were $1,318.41 (SD: 2,135.19) and $1,350.82 (SD: 2,144.81), respectively. From a societal perspective, the mean costs for short- and long-term outcomes were $1,888.07 (SD: 2,233.94) and $2,106.51 (SD: 2,307.87), respectively. The mean hospital costs associated with hernia recurrence (before reoperation) were $1,245.64 (SD: 739.59) and $1,355.89 (SD: 2,190.43) in those without recurrence. The mean societal costs associated with hernia recurrence (before reoperation) were $2,233.39 (SD: 982.82) and $2,100.39 (SD: 2,353.79) in those without recurrence. Treatment costs significantly varied among groups, with laparoscopic procedures being more expensive than open surgery. All cost data for each group are presented in Table 3.

Economic evaluation outcomes

An individual economic data analysis model of hernia repair costs was performed for both OHR and LHR mesh fixation methods to compare incremental mean utility and recurrent case prevention. All costs included hospital and societal perspectives for short- and long-term outcomes for each intervention group. The mean costs associated with LHR were higher than those with OHR for both hospital and societal perspectives. LSG had the highest associated total costs, followed by LT, LG, OS, and OSG, with OG representing the least costly alternative (Table 3).

Incremental utility scores were highest for OSG, followed by LG, LT, OG, LSG, and OS. The ICER for short- and long-term outcomes were calculated for both hospital and societal perspectives. LG provided the highest cost savings in the laparoscopic surgical group, whereas OSG provided the best ICER for the open surgical group for both short- and long-term follow-up outcomes (Tables 4 and 5).

The cost-effectiveness plane was considered under two scenarios: utility and hernia recurrence prevention. The utility cost-effectiveness plane indicated that LSG was less cost effective from both hospital and societal perspectives and short- and long-term follow-up outcomes. LG, OG, and OSG provided better cost-effectiveness planes compared to LT and OS (Supplementary Fig. 3).

The cost-effective plane for the prevention of hernia recurrence indicated that LSG was less cost effective from both hospital and societal perspectives; OSG demonstrated less cost-effectiveness from the societal perspective. LG and OG both indicated less cost-effectiveness representing lower costs – less costly but with a higher hernia recurrence rate. The results demonstrated that LG, OG, and OSG dominated results, higher than that of LT and OS, respectively. Although LSG more effectively prevented hernia recurrence, it was more costly than LT in both hospital and societal perspectives (Supplementary Fig. 4).

The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that OSG dominated all other options, from both the hospital and societal perspectives, using thresholds ranging from $0 to $3,000. OG was the second most cost-effective option using a societal perspective across a wide range of thresholds and at higher thresholds using a hospital perspective, whereas OS was the second most cost-effective option at low thresholds using a hospital perspective (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) of utility improvement LT = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using tacker, LG = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using glue, LSG = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh, OS = open inguinal hernia repair using suture, OG = open inguinal hernia repair using glue, OSG = open inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh

Discussion

This prospective cohort study provided an opportunity to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in 261 patients from data collected over 12 months. A total of 103 patients received LHR, with 47, 26, and 30 patients having tack, glue, and SGM mesh fixation, respectively; 158 patients received OHR with 117, 18, and 23 having suture, glue, and SGM mesh fixation, respectively. LSG had the highest hernia recurrence rate at approximately 10%, followed by OSG (8.70%), OG (5.56%), LG (3.85%), OS (3.42%), and LT (2.13%), respectively. OHR was associated with the highest rate of chronic groin pain, in particular OG.

Evaluation of economic outcomes identified higher overall costs associated with LHR than with OHR, with LSG and OS presenting the highest mean costs in each category. The mean overall utility scores calculated from multilevel mixed-effect linear regression models showed that LSG had the highest mean utility score of 0.975 (95% CI: 0.963, 0.987), followed by OS with mean utility of 0.973 (95% CI: 0.967, 0.979). The ICER, cost-effective acceptability curve, and cost-effectiveness planes suggested LSG was the least cost-effective in both utility outcomes and hernia recurrence prevention (i.e., higher costs and poorer outcomes). OSG had an acceptable cost-effectiveness plane for utility outcomes but was considered unacceptable for hernia recurrence prevention. OSG may be considered acceptable if the willingness to pay exceeded $2,500. The glue mesh fixation approach for both OHR and LHR presented an acceptable cost-effectiveness plane, with OG representing the best cost-effective acceptability curve for willingness to pay $0–2,500.

The international guideline for groin hernia management recommends mesh-based repair for symptomatic inguinal hernia patients, which can be either LHR or OHR [1]. The advantages of the former technique over the latter include less postoperative pain, [26, 27] paresthesia, [26] chronic groin pain, [28] more patient-reported satisfaction, [26] lower surgical wound complications, [27] shorter length of hospital stays, [29] earlier return to normal activities, [30] and fewer missed work hours [27]. However, many meta-analyses demonstrated no difference in recurrence rates between LHR and OHR [28, 31]. The current meta-analysis evidence of mesh fixation in OHR suggested that glue was superior to suture mesh at shorter operative time and reduced pain, but had no effect on long-term hernia recurrence, while chronic groin pain was equivocal. For SGM, no difference was found in the use of mesh fixation compared to suture or compared to flat mesh itself [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 32,33,34]. In LHR, glue was more useful than tack in reducing chronic groin pain, but there was no difference in hernia recurrence [34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. There is no SGM information for LHR.

We conducted a prospective real-world cohort study to evaluate effectiveness in clinical practice [41] as a guideline for individual surgical decision-making in inguinal hernia repair [42]. In addition to knowledge, surgical preference, and skills, the surgeon's decision on the best mesh fixation for the patient will be aided by cost variables and economic evaluation [43]. Given the differences between randomized controlled trials and real-world data analysis and in particular the between-group heterogeneity, treatment-effect models were used for data analyses before performing the economic evaluation. The POMs and ATEs were evaluated by group, which had reasonably balanced covariable measures. Overlapping propensity scores indicated patients had similar chances of receiving the specified treatments. This study considered both hospital and societal perspectives between two time periods: short term (1-week postoperatively) and long-term (6 months postoperatively), and both utility and clinical (recurrence prevention) outcomes address hospital administration and patient decisions on the selection of inguinal hernia mesh fixation approaches.

Laparoscopic surgical costs are more expensive given the additional instrumentation requirements as compared with those required for open surgery. Mean utility scores from multiple mixed-effects linear regression estimates for both approaches were similar (0.939 compared to 0.972), with better laparoscopic mean utility scores for both glue and SGM compared to the corresponding open groups. OG mesh fixation was found to be the most cost effective, followed by OSG. From a utility point of view, the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that LG, OG, and OSG demonstrated better cost-utility than the conventional mesh fixation (tack in laparoscopic and suture in open repair). However, LG, OG, and OSG had poorer cost-effectiveness than conventional mesh fixation based on the prevention of hernia recurrence outcomes. A limitation of our approach was the high hernia recurrence rate; the adjustment was performed using available meta-analyses results. Our data suggest that LG, OG, and OSG were more cost effective than the conventional mesh fixation, with LSG being more effective but also more costly than LT. In light of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, OG demonstrated the highest probability of being the most cost effective, followed by OSG indicating non-penetrating mesh fixation (glue or SGM) can be an alternative mesh fixation to open surgery. As laparoscopic surgery is more costly, despite the improved cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of LG for inguinal hernia repair, the lower recurrence rate cannot sufficiently determine their willingness to pay.

Our literature review failed to find evidence of a previous economic evaluation of inguinal hernia mesh fixation approaches. The hernia recurrence rate is the outcome of highest concern, likely compounded by the surgical approach performed. Surgical techniques that can increase recurrence rates include lack of mesh overlap, improper mesh choice, and lack of proper mesh fixation. International guidelines for groin hernia management recommend the use of non-penetrating mesh fixation for hernia repair to reduce postoperative pain [1]. Previous comparisons between glue and tack mesh fixation in TEP suggested a hospital cost-saving benefit for glue based on reduced surgical operation time, postoperative hospitalization time, and lower rates of adverse outcomes [44]. According to international guideline management for groin hernias, SGM has proven controversial for open repair, whereas evaluation of laparoscopic approaches is limited due to lack of data [1]. As such, reduction in the cost of SGM and surgical equipment required for laparoscopic hernia repair, coupled with improved surgical approaches may make nonpenetrating mesh fixation a more viable alternative for laparoscopic hernia repair [45].

This research has limitations. The observational design and the population in each group was not balanced. We chose real-world data as we believe that each surgeon has a preferred inguinal hernia repair technique (open vs. laparoscopic and mesh fixation method). The surgeon's preference may be influenced by RCT protocol violations or the outcome. However, the inverse proportion treatment weight method was able to balance the group variables and make the groups comparable. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression modelling was used to robustly identify the intervention effects.

Conclusion

In conclusion, mesh fixation approaches for the treatment of inguinal hernia repair were not significantly different with respect to hernia recurrence rates and cost-effectiveness analyses. Glues and self-gripping mesh for open inguinal hernia repair were alternative approaches for mesh fixation based on a cost-utility analysis; however, this would be dependent on a willingness to pay.

Availability of data and materials

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

Abbreviations

CEA:

Cost-effectiveness analysis

CUA:

Cost-utility analysis

ICER:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

LHR:

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

OHR:

Open inguinal hernia repair

SGM:

Self-gripping mesh

VAS:

Visual analog score

SSI:

Surgical site infection

BMI:

Body mass index

EQ-VAS:

European quality of life visual analog scale

EQ-5D-5L:

European quality of life five dimension five levels

SD:

Standard deviation

MD:

Mean difference

CI:

Confidence interval

POM:

Potential outcome mean

ATEs:

Average treatment effects

OS:

Open inguinal hernia repair with suture mesh fixation

OG:

Open inguinal hernia repair with glue mesh fixation

OSG:

Open inguinal hernia repair with self-gripping mesh

LT:

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with tacker mesh fixation

LG:

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with glue mesh fixation

LSG:

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with self-gripping mesh

References

  1. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia. 2018;22:1–165.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Delikoukos S, Fafoulakis F, Christodoulidis G, Theodoropoulos T, Hatzitheofilou C. Re-operation due to severe late-onset persisting groin pain following anterior inguinal hernia repair with mesh. Hernia. 2008;12:593–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gossetti F, D’Amore L, Annesi E, Bruzzone P, Bambi L, Grimaldi MR, et al. Mesh-related visceral complications following inguinal hernia repair: an emerging topic. Hernia. 2019;23:699–708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amid PK. Radiologic images of meshoma: a new phenomenon causing chronic pain after prosthetic repair of abdominal wall hernias. Arch Surg. 2004;139:1297–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. LeBlanc KA. Tack hernia: a new entity. Jsls. 2003;7:383–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen DK, Amid PK, Chen DC. Groin pain after inguinal hernia repair. Adv Surg. 2016;50:203–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nikkolo C, Lepner U. Chronic pain after open inguinal hernia repair. Postgrad Med. 2016;128:69–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johanet H, Contival N. Mesh infection after inguinal hernia mesh repair. J Visc Surg. 2011;148:e392–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bullen NL, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Smart NJ, Antoniou SA. Suture fixation versus self-gripping mesh for open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:2480–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Colvin HS, Rao A, Cavali M, Campanelli G, Amin AI. Glue versus suture fixation of mesh during open repair of inguinal hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2013;37:2282–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Goede B, Klitsie PJ, van Kempen BJ, Timmermans L, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, et al. Meta-analysis of glue versus sutured mesh fixation for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2013;100:735–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ismail A, Abushouk AI, Elmaraezy A, Abdelkarim AH, Shehata M, Abozaid M, et al. Self-gripping versus sutured mesh fixation methods for open inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies. Surg. 2017;162:18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ladwa N, Sajid MS, Sains P, Baig MK. Suture mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2013;11:128–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin H, Zhuang Z, Ma T, Sun X, Huang X, Li Y. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials assessing mesh fixation with glue versus suture in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Med (Baltimore). 2018;97: e0227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu H, Zheng X, Gu Y, Guo S. A meta-analysis examining the use of fibrin glue mesh fixation versus suture mesh fixation in open inguinal hernia repair. Dig Surg. 2014;31:444–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rausa E, Asti E, Kelly ME, Aiolfi A, Lovece A, Bonitta G, et al. Open inguinal hernia repair: A network meta-analysis comparing self-gripping mesh, suture fixation, and glue fixation. World J Surg. 2019;43:447–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sajid MS, Farag S, Singh KK, Miles WF. Systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials comparing the role of self-gripping mesh against suture mesh fixation in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair. Updates Surg. 2014;66:189–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Steensel S, Van Vugt LK, Al Omar AK, Mommers EHH, Breukink SO, Stassen LPS, et al. Meta-analysis of postoperative pain using non-sutured or sutured single-layer open mesh repair for inguinal hernia. BJS Open. 2019;3:260–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang C, Li F, Zhang H, Zhong W, Shi D, Zhao Y. Self-gripping versus sutured mesh for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. J Surg Res. 2013;185:653–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

  21. Bank of Thailand. Daily Foreign Exchange Rates. https://www.bot.or.th/english/_layouts/application/exchangerate/exchangerate.aspx. Accessed 6 Jan 2021.

  22. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Pattanaphesaj J. Health-related quality of life measure (EQ-5D-5L): measurement property testing and its preference-based score in Thai population: Thailand: Mahidol University Salaya,; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goñi JM, Tongsiri S, Ingsrisawang L, Teerawattananon Y. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18:551–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pro T. TreeAge Pro 2020, R1. TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA; software available at http://www.treeage.com. 2020.

  26. Patterson TJ, Beck J, Currie PJ, Spence RAJ, Spence G. Meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2019;106:824–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rana G, Armijo PR, Khan S, Bills N, Morien M, Zhang J, et al. Outcomes and impact of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus open inguinal hernia repair on healthcare spending and employee absenteeism. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:821–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bullen NL, Massey LH, Antoniou SA, Smart NJ, Fortelny RH. Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia. 2019;23:461–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Perez AJ, Strassle PD, Sadava EE, Gaber C, Schlottmann F. Nationwide analysis of inpatient laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2020;30:292–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gudigopuram SVR, Raguthu CC, Gajjela H, Kela I, Kakarala CL, Hassan M, et al. Inguinal hernia mesh repair: The factors to consider when deciding between open versus laparoscopic repair. Cureus. 2021;13: e19628.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Morlacchi A, et al. Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia. 2019;23:473–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Phoa S, Chan KS, Lim SH, Oo AM, Shelat VG. Comparison of glue versus suture mesh fixation for primary open inguinal hernia mesh repair by Lichtenstein technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2022;26:1105–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sun P, Cheng X, Deng S, Hu Q, Sun Y, Zheng Q. Mesh fixation with glue versus suture for chronic pain and recurrence in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:Cd010814.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jiang WR, Zhang XB, Wang R, Cao D, Yu YJ. Mesh fixation techniques in Lichtenstein tension-free repair: a network meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.17730.

  35. Techapongsatorn S, Tansawet A, Kasetsermwiriya W, McEvoy M, Attia J, Wilasrusmee C, et al. Mesh fixation technique in totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair - A network meta-analysis. Surgeon. 2019;17:215–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shi Z, Fan X, Zhai S, Zhong X, Huang D. Fibrin glue versus staple for mesh fixation in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:527–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shah NS, Fullwood C, Siriwardena AK, Sheen AJ. Mesh fixation at laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis comparing tissue glue and tack fixation. World J Surg. 2014;38:2558–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L, McFall M, Baig MK, Sains P. A meta-analysis examining the use of tacker mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2013;206:103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kaul A, Hutfless S, Le H, Hamed SA, Tymitz K, Nguyen H, et al. Staple versus fibrin glue fixation in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1269–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mitura K, Garnysz K, Wyrzykowska D, Michałek I. The change in groin pain perception after transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with glue fixation: a prospective trial of a single surgeon’s experience. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:4284–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim HS, Lee S, Kim JH. Real-world evidence versus randomized controlled trial: Clinical research based on electronic medical records. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33: e213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Köckerling F, Schug-Pass C. Tailored approach in inguinal hernia repair - decision tree based on the guidelines. Front Surg. 2014;1:20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Mitura K, Dąbrowiecki S, Śmietański M, Matyja A. The experience and awareness of laparoendoscopic procedures among Polish surgeons in everyday clinical practice. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2017;12:13–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Panda S, Connolly M, Ramirez MG. Cost comparison of fibrin sealant versus tack screws for mesh fixation in laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia. Hosp Pract. 1995;2018(46):233–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Vigneswaran Y, Linn JG, Gitelis M, Muldoon JP, Lapin B, Denham W, et al. Educating surgeons may allow for reduced intraoperative costs for inguinal herniorrhaphy. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:1107–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is a part of the Ph.D. (Clinical Epidemiology) training of Suphakarn Techapongsatorn, the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, and Faculty of Graduate Studies, Bangkok Thailand. This research was supported for publication by Mahidol University as part of the Ph.D. (Clinical Epidemiology) training.

Funding

This research was supported for publication by Mahidol University as part of the Ph.D. (Clinical Epidemiology) training.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

There are no conflicts of interest declared by the authors. S.T., along with A.Ta., A.Th., and O.P., is the lead investigator with overall responsibility for this study. A.Th. and O.P. assisted with design, data analysis, and manuscript editing. J.A. and G.M.K. assisted with manuscript editing. The final manuscript was read and approved by all writers.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oraluck Pattanaprateep.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Vajira Institutional Review Board (COA No. 160/2561) and the Committee on Human Rights Related to Research Involving Human Subjects, Ramathibodi Hospital (COA No. MURA2018/986). All methods were carried out in accordance with their regulations and informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).

Consent for publication

Consent for publication was obtained from all subjects.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplement table 1.

Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model comparing co-variables with mean utility score among 6 intervention groups. Supplement table 2. Describe balance of co-variables among 6 intervention groups: treatment multi-logit model. Supplement table 3. Comparisons of utility scores among 6 interventions: treatment-effect model.

Additional file 2: Supplement figure 1.

Overlap plot LT = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using tacker, LG = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using glue, LSG = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh, OS = open inguinal hernia repair using suture, OG = open inguinal hernia repair using glue, OSG = open inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh Supplement figure 2. Covariate balance density LT = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using tacker, LG = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using glue, LSG = laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh, OS = open inguinal hernia repair using suture, OG = open inguinal hernia repair using glue, OSG = open inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh. Supplement figure 3. Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) plane of utility improvement. Supplement figure 4. Incremental cost-effective (ICER) plane in hernia recurrence case prevented from cohort study

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Techapongsatorn, S., Tansawet, A., Pattanaprateep, O. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mesh fixation techniques for laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia surgeries. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 1125 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08491-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08491-4

Keywords

  • Inguinal hernia
  • Mesh fixation
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis