PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new mesh in the pre-peritoneal repair of @entity169 . METHODS: We randomly divided 120 @entity1 undergoing pre-peritoneal repair into 2 groups between March 2012 and December 2013. The @entity1 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 @entity158 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 @entity260 . The VAS of early @entity282 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 @entity1118 , 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 @entity169 with the same advantage compared to the Modified Kugel mesh.

Swing mesh versus Modified Kugel mesh for primary XXXX . A prospective randomized clinical trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity260 :: ('MESH:D011183', 'Disease') :: ['postoperative complications'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['pain'] @entity169 :: ('MESH:D006552', 'Disease') :: ['inguinal hernia repair', 'inguinal hernia'] @entity282 :: ('MESH:D010149', 'Disease') :: ['postoperative pain'] @entity1118 :: ('MESH:D059350', 'Disease') :: ['chronic pain']
@entity169 :: (MESH:D006552,Disease) :: ['inguinal hernia repair']
