Purpose: Laparoscopic hernioplasty is a standard procedure used for the repair of inguinal hernia. However, due to the technical and anatomical complexities associated with this treatment and the requirement for long surgery time as compared to other methods, the use of laparoscopic hernioplasty remains questionable. This study compared the results of two surgical repair methods: totally extraperitoneal (TEP) hernia repair and the Prolene hernia system (PHS).
Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent TEP (154 cases) and PHS (126 cases) from January 2008 to December 2010 as performed by a surgeon at our hospital. Operating time, length of hospital stay, recurrence rate, surgical site infection rate, wound hematoma rate and scrotum swelling rate were all compared.
Results: For the TEP treatment cases the mean operating time was 59.5 min, mean hospital stay was 4.9 days, there were 2 cases (1.3%) of recurrence, one case (0.6%) of surgical site infection, 20 cases (12.9%) of wound hematoma and 8 cases (5.2%) of scrotum swelling. In the case including treatment by PHS the mean operating time was 39.6 min, mean hospital stay was 5.4 days, there were no cases of recurrence, there were 2 cases (1.7%) of surgical site infection, 11 cases (9.5%) of wound hematoma and 12 cases (10.3%) of scrotum swelling. There were no cases involving neurogenic pain or chronic pain.
Conclusion: Both PHS and TEP are safe and effective procedures for repairing inguinal hernia. Thus, with consideration of variable patient conditions and other factors, either PHS or TEP are recommended as viable procedures for treating inguinal hernia.

Keywords Inguinal hernia, Totally extraperitoneal, Prolene hernia system, Post operative complications

1. Usher FC, Hill JR, Ochsner JL. Hernia repair with Marlexmesh: a comparison of techniques. Surgery 1959;46:718-724.
   
2. Awad SS, Yallampalli S, Srour AM, et al. Improved outcomes with the Prolene Hernia System mesh compared with the time-honored Lichtenstein onlay mesh repair for inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2007;193:697-701.
   
3. Filipi CJ, Fizgibbons RJ Jr, Sa lerno GM, et al. Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Surg Clin North Am 1992;72:1109-1124.
   
4. Garg P, Menon GR, Rajagopal M, et al. Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of recurrent inguinal hernias. Surg Endoscopy 2010;2:450-454.
   
5. Youn SI, Kim BG, Ch SJ, Chang IT. The comparative analysis between laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy and open inguinal herniorrhaphy. J Korean Surg Soc 2005;69:166-171.
6. Kim JS, Jang HJ, Cho YP, et al. A comparing study of herniorrhaphies laparoscopy, Li chtenstein and conventional repairs. J Korean Surg Soc 2002;63:57-62.
7. Taylor CJ, Wilson T. Long-term r esults of laparoscopic totall y extraperitoneal inguinal herniorrhaphy. ANZ J Surg 2005;75:637-639.
   
8. Czechowski A, Schafmayer A. TAPP versus TEP: a retrospective analysis 5 years after laparoscopic transperitoneal and total endoscopic extraperitoneal repair in inguinal and femoral hernia. Chirurg 2003;74:1143-1149.
   
9. Lowham AS, Filipi CJ, Fitzgibbons Jr RJ, et al. Mechanisms of hernia recurrence after preperitoneal mesh repair: tradition al and laparoscopic. Ann Surg 1997;225:422-431.
   
10. Phillips EH, Rosenthal R, Fallas M, et al. Reasons for early recurrence following laparoscop ic hernioplasty. Surg Endosc 1995;9:140-145.