{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03233256351039261, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029253271747498075, 'mean_word_length': 4.777777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Swing mesh versus Modified Kugel mesh for primary inguinal hernia repair. A prospective randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new mesh in the pre-peritoneal repair of inguinal hernia.


METHODS
We randomly divided 120 patients undergoing pre-peritoneal repair into 2 groups between March 2012 and December 2013. The patients were randomized to receive the Swing mesh (n=60; study group) or the Modified Kugel mesh (n=60; control group). The primary end point of this study was to compare postoperative groin pain of the two groups. Complications, recurrence and analgesic use were also recorded.


RESULTS
There were no recurrent cases in either group throughout the study period. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to postoperative complications. The VAS of early postoperative pain was 1.32±1.69 in study group and 1.52±1.93 in control group, with the difference being not statistically significant (p = 0.547). Concerning chronic pain, no remarkable statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups at 3-month, 6-month, 12- and 18-month follow-up period.


CONCLUSION
Swing mesh can be safely and effectively used in inguinal hernia repair with the same advantage compared to the Modified Kugel mesh.