Totally extraperitoneal repair for the 'sportsman's groin' via 'the Manchester Groin Repair': a comparison of elite versus amateur athletes

The Sheen Paajanen grOin Recommended Treatment 'SPoRT' score for groin pain

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating groin pain still evades many clinicians at times as they have difficulty determining the cause of pain when no true hernia exists. This study's aim was to evaluate a simple and novel scoring system which is reproducible, to help determine whether conservative measures or surgery is recommended for the management of groin pain attributable to inguinal disruption.

MATERIAL & METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients from 2018 to 2020 that underwent surgery or conservative management for inguinal disruption with at least a 1-year follow-up were evaluated. The scoring system is based on MRI and ultrasound imaging as well as clinical findings, with scores given from - 2 to + 2 based on the defined findings listed. A maximum total of four points scored for each assessment was used. Sensitivity and specificity analysis was conducted for each potential score cut off point.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were evaluated with 33 patients (19%) undergoing conservative management and 139 patients (81%) undergoing surgery. The median SPoRT score for the surgery group was 2.0 (1.0, 3.0), and - 1.0 (- 3.0, 0.0) in the physiotherapy group which was a significant difference (p < 0.001). An optimal cut off of ≤ 0 for physio and ≥ 1 for surgery was established, yielding a sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI 75.7%-98.1%), a specificity of 89.2% (95% CI 82.8%-93.8%) and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.936 (95% CI 0.874-0.997).

DISCUSSION

SPoRT score of ≤ 0 can recommend a patient should undergo conservative measures or physiotherapy as a mainstay of treatment with a score of ≥ 1 recommending surgery. Further validation of the score is necessary.

Anatomy and terminology of groin pain: Current concepts

Groin pain is a common symptom in athletes. The complex anatomy of the area and the various terms used to describe the etiology behind groin pain have led to a confusing nomenclature. To solve this problem, three consensus statements have been already published in the literature: the Manchester Position Statement in 2014, the Doha agreement in 2015, and the Italian Consensus in 2016. However, when revisiting recent literature, it is evident that the use of non-anatomic terms remains common, and the diagnoses sports hernia, sportsman's hernia, sportsman's groin, Gilmore's groin, athletic pubalgia, and core muscle injury are still used by many authors. Why are they still in use although rejected? Are they considered synonyms, or they are used to describe different pathology? This current concepts review article aims to clarify the confusing terminology by examining to which anatomical structures authors refer when using each term, revisit the complex anatomy of the area, including the adductors, the flat and vertical abdominal muscles, the inguinal canal, and the adjacent nerve branches, and propose an anatomical approach, which will provide the basis for improved communication between healthcare professionals and evidence-based treatment decisions.

Totally extra-peritoneal repair versus trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair for the laparoscopic surgical management of sportsman's hernia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open and laparoscopic modalities are employed for treatment of sportsman's hernia with totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) and trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic approaches both currently being utilised. At present, neither subtype has demonstrated a beneficial superiority for sportsman's hernia repair, as concluded in the most recent systematic review comparing the outcomes of each technique. The aim of this review was to evaluate current evidence to ascertain whether there was a difference in laparoscopic techniques following sportsman's hernia repair.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for RCTs and observational studies, respectively.The assessed outcomes included median time to return to sporting activity, complications and the degree of postoperative pain reduction within three months. Random effects model was used to calculate pooled proportion data where feasible. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

28 studies were identified including 2 RCTs and 26 observational studies. No significant differences were observed between techniques in the primary or secondary outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in all outcomes. This was more pronounced for return to sporting activity meaning that meta-analysis was not feasible in this domain. Median time to return to sporting activity was 28 days for both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no observed difference in the primary and secondary outcomes in either technique. An RCT comparing TEP and TAPP repair is needed to provide definitive data on this matter.