Background: There is no consensus on whether lightweight mesh (LWM) is better than heavyweight mesh (HWM) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). This study aims to update the previous reviews and to analyze present randomized controlled studies comparing LWM versus HWM in LIHR systematically. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared LWM with HWM in adults with LIHR. All eligible data of outcomes were quantitatively analyzed using Revman 5.3 software or qualitatively described. The outcomes included chronic pain, moderate-severe chronic pain, recurrence, foreign body sensation, influence on sexual life and male fertility (pain with ejaculation, testicular pain, etc.). Results: We included 12 RCTs that analyzed 3092 hernias. The difference between LWM and HWM groups at any follow-up time was not significant in chronic pain and foreign body sensation. Compared with HWM group, patients in LWM group had a similar risk of postoperative moderate-severe chronic pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up, a slightly increased risk of developing moderate-severe chronic pain at >12 months follow-up (risk ratio [RR] = 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-9.75, P = .04), and a higher risk of recurrence rate (RR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.17-4.44, P = .02). At long-term follow-up, the influences of LWM and HWM on sexual life and male fertility were comparable. Conclusion: LWMs do not show advantages in chronic pain, foreign body sensation as well as the influence on sexual life and male fertility, and may increase hernia recurrence rates for LIHR. In addition, a higher incremental cost and lower incremental effect of LWMs make conventional HWMs preferred choice for LIHR.
Keywords: inguinal hernia; laparoscopic repair; lightweight mesh; meta-analysis.