search
Back to results

Self Fixating Versus Stapled Mesh for Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Primary Purpose

Inguinal Hernia

Status
Recruiting
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United Kingdom
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
self-gripping mesh
Stapled mesh
Sponsored by
Doncaster And Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Inguinal Hernia focused on measuring Inguinal hernia, Groin hernia, Laparoscopy, Mesh

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - 100 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age >18
  • Demonstrated to have primary or recurrent unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia
  • Both patient and surgeon occupy a position of equipoise over the relative merits of either intervention
  • Ability to give informed written consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Non-elective acute presentation with inguinal hernia and its complications
  • Inability to give informed written consent
  • Groin symptoms which on clinical examination and radiological investigations fail to demonstrate any evidence of inguinal hernia.
  • Pregnancy

Sites / Locations

  • Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals Nhs Foundation TrustRecruiting

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Group 1 (Self-gripping Mesh),

Group 2 (Stapled Mesh)

Arm Description

The initial laparoscopic approach will be the same for both groups until the process of selection and placement of the mesh , which would be decided by randomization by sealed envelope. This group will receive self-gripping mesh

The initial laparoscopic approach will be the same for both groups until the process of selection and placement of the mesh , which would be decided by randomization by sealed envelope. This group will receive stapled mesh

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Chronic pain rates Hernia recurrence rates
Pain persisting beyond 3 months post inguinal hernia surgery
Hernia recurrence rates
Clinical or radiological evidence of inguinal hernia at any time point

Secondary Outcome Measures

Technical success
Both techniques will be compared for conversion from laparoscopic procedure to open.
Operative time
Both techniques will be compared for time taken to complete surgery (in minutes)
Analgesia requirement
Both techniques will be compared for analgesic consumption
Perioperative complications including injury to organs, bleeding
Both techniques will be compared for any perioperative complications.
Return to work and routine activities
Both techniques will be compared for time taken to return to work and routine activities( in days).
Quality-of-life improvement
Both techniques will be compared for improvement in quality of life using specified questionnaires
Cost effectiveness of the two techniques by assessing incremental cost per QALY of the intervention
Both techniques will be compared for cost effectiveness

Full Information

First Posted
January 27, 2019
Last Updated
October 24, 2023
Sponsor
Doncaster And Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03856710
Brief Title
Self Fixating Versus Stapled Mesh for Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair
Official Title
A Double-blinded Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Self-fixating Versus Stapled Mesh in the Laparoscopic Management of Inguinal Hernia
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
October 2022
Overall Recruitment Status
Recruiting
Study Start Date
September 22, 2017 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
May 31, 2024 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
December 31, 2024 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Doncaster And Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
Inguinal (groin) hernias are common and occur when an internal part of the body pushes through a weakness in the surrounding tissue wall of the groin. They are more likely to occur in men and affect people's quality of life by causing pain that is worse after any strenuous activity. If untreated they can cause serious problems such as strangulation when too much bowel comes through the weakness and becomes squeezed with the risk of losing blood supply requiring emergency surgery. To prevent such complications, elective surgery for symptomatic inguinal hernias is undertaken either in the conventional open method which involves a cut in the groin, or the keyhole surgery, when the surgery is undertaken via three small incisions in the abdomen (instead of a single, larger groin incision), a thin tube containing a light source and a camera (laparoscope) is inserted through one of these incisions, so the surgeon can see inside the abdomen. Special surgical instruments are inserted through the other incisions, so the surgeon can pull or push the hernia back into place and a piece of mesh is then stapled or glued to secure it to the weakened area in the abdomen wall. Securing the mesh with staple has been associated with increased post-operative pain and analgesia requirement; whereas not doing so has been thought to increase the chances of recurrence- more so in large sized weakness. A newer mesh appears to offer benefit over conventional meshes as it grips the tissues around the weakness without requiring staples or glue to fix it in place, and has shown to cause lesser post-operative pain and recurrence. This study is going to compare the newer self-gripping mesh with the conventional mesh requiring fixation to see which is best for patients undergoing keyhole repair to fix inguinal hernias.
Detailed Description
Design: Double Blinded Randomised Controlled Trial This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in the setting of two district general teaching hospitals serving an aggregate population of over 750 000. There are already established general surgical clinics and operating sessions available for and including study patients. Both units undertake conventional open and laparoscopic treatments for inguinal hernias on a regular basis in keeping with the national average numbers. Methodology; Patients with symptomatic unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernias diagnosed clinically &/or radiologically will be identified at general surgical clinics and the primary investigator, will arrange the following; Assess inclusion / exclusion criteria for participation in study Informed written consent for participation in the study Baseline clinical severity and quality of life analysis using: Euroqol (EQ5D) Core Outcome Measures Index adapted for patients with hernia (COMI-hernia) Informed written consent for intervention (the patient will be blinded as to the intervention group) Subjects; Patients will be identified during attendance to our general surgical clinics. Patients will be clearly informed that participation in the study is entirely voluntary and that refusal to participate will in no way disadvantage them. Intervention (within 3 months of randomization); Re-assess inclusion / exclusion criteria Ensure informed written consent for surgery / participation in the study Intervention; The initial laparoscopic approach will be the same for both groups until the process of selection and placement of the mesh (ProGripTM self-gripping mesh versus standard 'lightweight' (large pore) polypropylene mesh fixed with SecurestrapTM) which would be decided by randomization by sealed envelope into one of the 2 intervention groups: Group 1 (Self-gripping Mesh), Group 2 (Stapled Mesh). The surgeon will have a choice of Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) or Total Extraperitoneal (TEP) to perform the laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Both TAPP and TEP are standard laparoscopic techniques used for treatment of inguinal hernias both within the National Health Service (NHS) and across the world. Postoperative Care Since most laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs are performed as day cases, patients may be discharged on the same day of surgery after recovery with simple analgesia. Diet can be resumed immediately and the convalescent period is expected to be 1-2 days with routine activities expected to resume at 2 weeks. Blinding precautions: Patients will be unaware of the type of mesh received as the randomisation process will be carried out intraoperatively when the patient is under general anaesthesia. Subsequently, over the follow-up period every possible effort will be made to continue the blinding process in order to minimise any bias in patient reported outcomes. Perioperative outcome measures Time taken for procedure Admission / 30-day readmission rates Procedure-specific complications Direct (marginal) costs Post-operative assessments Performed at 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months (by Surgical Registrar blinded to the intervention received by the patient). 1 Week and 3 month follow-up will be over telephone (with a view to review patient in the Hospital, should any concerns be expressed or elicited from the patient); 6 weeks and 12 month follow-up will be face-to-face in an out-patient clinic setting. At each assessment the following will be analysed: Pain - recorded prospectively in a diary by the patient independently. Recorded daily for the first week on an un-marked 100mm long scale, from absolutely no pain to the worst imaginable pain Analgesia requirements - recorded daily for the first week in a diary by the patient independently Extent of ecchymosis, seroma/haematoma - The registrar will assess for any signs of ecchymosis, seroma or haematoma and measure the magnitude of surface area(s) affected at 6 weeks. Time to return to work and normal activities - reported by the patient. (Post-op all patients will be advised to mobilise and return to normal activities as soon as they feel able) Procedure-specific complications; Clinical efficacy and effectiveness; using Euroqol (EQ5D) Core Outcome Measures Index adapted for patients with hernia (COMI-hernia) Patient satisfaction rating scales Cost effectiveness and cost benefit; using Direct costs Indirect costs Willingness to pay data Quality of life and economic analysis; Generic Euroqol (EQ5D) instrument Core Outcome Measures Index adapted for patients with hernia (COMI-hernia) The combination of these generic EQ5D and disease specific COMI-hernia tools are thus sensitive to assess & compare both multidimensional and cost-effectiveness outcomes in patients undergoing surgical treatment for inguinal hernia repair. Procedure-specific complications Patient satisfaction rating scale Cost effectiveness analysis; will be analysed in terms of Cost / symptom-free patient Cost / QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) calculated from the EQ5D and COMI-hernia indices Direct hospital costs will be collected prospectively with the help of the hospital finance department; whilst indirect patient cost data (income loss, domestic support etc.) will be assessed and calculated at interview at 3 and 12 months. Direct & indirect costs will provide total costs for use in the cost/QALY calculations. Cost benefit analysis; outcomes, expressed as monetary units assessed by direct willingness to pay (WTP) questioning, at 3 and 12 months will be used for cost benefit analysis e.g. cost / £ willing to pay and cost / percent of weekly income willing to pay. Data collection and analysis Data will be collected and entered onto a specifically designed Microsoft Access database Data distribution will be studied and analysed appropriately. Intergroup analysis will be performed using Mann-Whitney U test and intragroup analysis will be performed using the Friedman test across time points and Wilcoxon's ranked sum test between two time points. Regression techniques and multivariate analysis will then be utilised for a more thorough interrogation of the data. For the economic analysis, the incremental cost per QALY of the intervention will be assessed. This follows the example of National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) who use a threshold of £20 000 to £30 000 per QALY gained. However, cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted under conditions of uncertainty. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) will be generated to demonstrate the uncertainty around the decision. Given the data available within the model, the CEAC will plot the probability of one strategy being more cost-effective than the others for a range of threshold values of an additional QALY. Interim Analysis: An interim analysis will be carried out after recruitment of 25 patients per group. The goal of this analysis is to evaluate recruitment rates, adverse events and serious adverse events if any, as well as the overall viability and conduct of the trial. The reported rates of moderate to severe chronic groin pain affecting QoL after elective hernia repair ranges between 0 to 36%8-11. The variation is also attributed to the inconsistencies in the definition of chronic pain. Investigators have taken the chronic pain rates from one of the larger reported series (Garg et al 200937) to calculate the sample size as their rates may be similar to the predicted chronic pain rates when fixing moderate to large sized defects with permanent fixation devices. The sample size of 47 per group (allowing for a dropout rate of 15%) will therefore be a pragmatic number to achieve recruitment, follow-up and completion of the trial within the anticipated time period. However the sample size derived from the meta-analysis (Sajid et al 201338) will be considered for a future multi-centre trial that is planned by investigators' group based on the outcomes from this pilot study. Ethical issues; All patients will be given adequate time to read the patient information sheet No undue pressure will be exerted on any individual to participate in the study The patient consent form will be signed by the patient and the researcher, only when both are happy that the patient has understood the information sheet and is willing to give informed written consent to participate in the study, and that the patient understands that it is their right to withdraw from the trial at any time without prejudice to their future treatment. Project milestones Based upon the average number of patients seen in general surgical clinics with symptomatic inguinal hernias requiring surgical intervention, we envision recruitment taking 6-8 months across both sites. Taking an average waiting time of 3 months from clinic appointment to date of operation, most patients in the trial should have their planned intervention by 9-12 months from start of recruitment. Most of the key outcomes will be collected within 6 weeks post procedure. The most important outcomes of chronic pain and early recurrence will be evaluated at 3, 12 month follow-up post procedure, hence taking between 18-24 months for completion of trial. The effect sizes used for sample size calculation were conservative and the true required sample may be lower. An interim analysis will be performed after recruitment of 25 patients per group. This data will help to guide the requirement for further recruitment and establish if intergroup differences are larger than expected. It may be possible to curtail recruitment with a lower sample size. Risk Profile It is not likely that there should be any reason to stop this trial prematurely, as the interventions in question are currently in regular clinical practice both in the NHS and worldwide without any added risks reported by the manufacturers or in the scientific literature. Intervention; Both treatment techniques of laparoscopic fixation of mesh with stapling device and use of self-gripping mesh not requiring fixation are used already for treatment of inguinal hernias, both within the NHS and across the world. They have been shown to be safe and effective, with no more increase in complications. Treatment related risks will be covered by NHS indemnity. Complications are classed as: Non-specific: Acute post-operative pain, infection, haematoma, recurrence, port site hernia. Specific complications: Chronic post-operative pain, shrinkage; dislocation; migration; erosion of mesh All procedures will be planned and performed by Consultant Surgeons skilled and experienced in the performance of laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair. Complications and adverse events will be reported to the Principal Investigator and each incidence individually investigated. Any concerns over outcomes will be discussed with all of the co-investigators and clinicians involved in the trial. Any safety concerns will result in suspension of the trial pending further investigation. Trial Process; All of the trial outcomes are non-invasive and offer no significant risk to patients; in fact the enhanced follow-up will allow closer monitoring of patients for procedure or product related complications. The participants will have given their informed consent, prior to taking part in this study. All participant details will be number coded and kept securely. Participants are unlikely to be identified from digital images, which will be numbered to ensure anonymity and archived securely. The overall aim is to observe and compare outcomes in patients undergoing standardised, established treatment protocols currently in wide utilisation, with no deviation from standard practice. As such investigators do not envisage patients being placed at undue risk.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Inguinal Hernia
Keywords
Inguinal hernia, Groin hernia, Laparoscopy, Mesh

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
This is a double blinded randomised controlled trial of ProGripTM self-gripping mesh versus standard 'lightweight' (large pore) polypropylene mesh fixed with SecurestrapTM an absorbable strap fixation device in the laparoscopic treatment of inguinal hernias. Sample size is 47 patients per group.
Masking
ParticipantOutcomes Assessor
Masking Description
Patients will be unaware of the type of mesh received as the randomisation process will be carried out intraoperatively when the patient is under general anaesthesia. Subsequently, over the follow-up period every possible effort will be made to continue the blinding process in order to minimise any bias in patient reported outcomes. Similarly outcome assessors would be blinded as well.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
47 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Group 1 (Self-gripping Mesh),
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
The initial laparoscopic approach will be the same for both groups until the process of selection and placement of the mesh , which would be decided by randomization by sealed envelope. This group will receive self-gripping mesh
Arm Title
Group 2 (Stapled Mesh)
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
The initial laparoscopic approach will be the same for both groups until the process of selection and placement of the mesh , which would be decided by randomization by sealed envelope. This group will receive stapled mesh
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
self-gripping mesh
Intervention Description
The initial laparoscopic approach will be the same for both groups until the process of selection and placement of the mesh (ProGripTM self-gripping mesh versus standard 'lightweight' (large pore) polypropylene mesh fixed with SecurestrapTM) which would be decided by randomization by sealed envelope into one of the 2 intervention groups: Group 1 (Self-gripping Mesh), Group 2 (Stapled Mesh).
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Stapled mesh
Intervention Description
The initial laparoscopic approach will be the same for both groups until the process of selection and placement of the mesh (ProGripTM self-gripping mesh versus standard 'lightweight' (large pore) polypropylene mesh fixed with SecurestrapTM) which would be decided by randomization by sealed envelope into one of the 2 intervention groups: Group 1 (Self-gripping Mesh), Group 2 (Stapled Mesh).
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Chronic pain rates Hernia recurrence rates
Description
Pain persisting beyond 3 months post inguinal hernia surgery
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Hernia recurrence rates
Description
Clinical or radiological evidence of inguinal hernia at any time point
Time Frame
12 months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Technical success
Description
Both techniques will be compared for conversion from laparoscopic procedure to open.
Time Frame
1 day
Title
Operative time
Description
Both techniques will be compared for time taken to complete surgery (in minutes)
Time Frame
1 day
Title
Analgesia requirement
Description
Both techniques will be compared for analgesic consumption
Time Frame
1 week
Title
Perioperative complications including injury to organs, bleeding
Description
Both techniques will be compared for any perioperative complications.
Time Frame
1 day
Title
Return to work and routine activities
Description
Both techniques will be compared for time taken to return to work and routine activities( in days).
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Quality-of-life improvement
Description
Both techniques will be compared for improvement in quality of life using specified questionnaires
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Cost effectiveness of the two techniques by assessing incremental cost per QALY of the intervention
Description
Both techniques will be compared for cost effectiveness
Time Frame
12 months

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
100 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Age >18 Demonstrated to have primary or recurrent unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia Both patient and surgeon occupy a position of equipoise over the relative merits of either intervention Ability to give informed written consent Exclusion Criteria: Non-elective acute presentation with inguinal hernia and its complications Inability to give informed written consent Groin symptoms which on clinical examination and radiological investigations fail to demonstrate any evidence of inguinal hernia. Pregnancy
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Srinivasan Balchandra, MS, MD, FRCS
Phone
00447500856747
Email
srinivasan.balchandra@nhs.net
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Samer Wafai
Phone
00441302366666
Email
s.wafai@nhs.net
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Srinivasan Balchandra, MS, MD, FRCS
Organizational Affiliation
Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation trust
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals Nhs Foundation Trust
City
Doncaster
State/Province
South Yorkshire
ZIP/Postal Code
DN2 5LT
Country
United Kingdom
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Srinivasan Balchandra, MS.MD,FRCS
Phone
00447500856747
Email
srinivasan.balchandra@nhs.net

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Yes
IPD Sharing Plan Description
The data will be utilised by the parent research team to make comparisons of the two techniques as listed in the protocol and results presented at scientific conferences and shared in the scientific literature. However sharing individual patient data has not been decided and in the future may be considered subject to data protection and confidentiality policies.
IPD Sharing Time Frame
6 months after the Trial completion and will be available for 2 years
IPD Sharing Access Criteria
The study results will be shared with other researchers once completed. All listed and relevant participant Data, access criteria, statistics and clinical study report will be shared.

Learn more about this trial

Self Fixating Versus Stapled Mesh for Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs