Background: Retrospective analyses have shown that long-term recurrence rates after Lichtenstein mesh and Shouldice herniorrhaphies are low. Therefore differences in short-term outcome may be important determinants of one's choice of repair. Although proponents of the mesh repair claim that their methods is less morbid, to our knowledge no prospective comparative studies of short-term morbidity have been reported.
Methods: One hundred five adult patients were randomized to undergo either a mesh or Shouldice inguinal hernia repair. Postoperative pain, narcotic use, and time to resumption of usual activities and employment were recorded. Patients were blinded to the type of repair received until all data were collected.
Results: There was no difference between the herniorrhaphy methods with respect to postoperative pain, duration of narcotic use, and time to resumption of usual activity and employment. Recovery was rapid for both groups of patients. By 3 days after operation, 50% of patients rated their pain as very mild or less and no longer required narcotic analgesics. Patients in both groups returned to usual activity and work by a median of 9 days after operation.
Conclusion: Both of these well-established methods can be used to repair inguinal hernias with local anesthetics in an outpatient setting with minimal morbidity. Despite the "tension-free" design of the mesh repair, short-term outcomes of mesh and Shouldice repairs of inguinal hernias do not differ.