Prospective, randomized-controlled trial comparing postoperative pain after plug and patch open repair with totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair

Sexual dysfunction between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Sexual dysfunction after inguinal hernia complication is considered rare. However, its consequences impact on quality of life inevitably. Laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair may be comparable in terms of recurrent rate, overall complications, and chronic pain. Therefore, its complication is still questionable between these approaches. In this study, we compared sexual dysfunction and related complications between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies were performed to compare laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULT

Thirty RCTs (12,022 patients) were included. Overall, 6014 (50.02%) underwent laparoscopic hernia repair, and 6008 (49.98%) underwent open hernia repair. Laparoscopic approach provided non-significance benefit on pain during sexual activity (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.18, 1.76), Vas deferens injury (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.13, 1.63), orchitis (RR 0.84; CI 0.61,1.17), scrotal hematoma (RR 0.99; CI 0.62,1.60), and testicular atrophy (RR 0.46; CI 0.17,1.20). Meanwhile, the open inguinal hernia approach seems to perform better for cord seroma complications and testicular pain.

CONCLUSION

There is no advantage of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair over an open approach concerning sexual dysfunction. On the contrary, there is an increasing risk of cord seroma after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with statistical significance.

Varying convalescence recommendations after inguinal hernia repair: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

The most recent international guideline on inguinal hernia management recommends a short convalescence after repair. However, surgeons' recommendations may vary. The objective of this study was to give an overview of the current convalescence recommendations in the literature subdivided on the Lichtenstein and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.

METHODS

In this systematic review, three databases were searched in August 2021 to identify studies on inguinal hernia repairs with a statement about postoperative convalescence recommendations. The outcome was convalescence recommendations subdivided on daily activities, light work, heavy lifting, and sport.

RESULTS

In total, 91 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, and 50 and 58 studies reported about convalescence recommendations after Lichtenstein and laparoscopic repairs, respectively. Patients were instructed with a wide range of convalescence recommendations. A total of 34 Lichtenstein studies and 35 laparoscopic studies recommended resumption of daily activities as soon as possible. Following Lichtenstein repairs, the patients were instructed to resume light work after median 0 days (interquartile range (IQR) 0-0), heavy lifting after 42 days (IQR 14-42), and sport after 7 days (IQR 0-29). Following laparoscopic procedures, the patients were instructed to resume light work after median 0 days (IQR 0-0), heavy lifting after 14 days (IQR 10-28), and sport after 12 days (IQR 7-23).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed a broad spectrum of convalescence recommendations depending on activity level following inguinal hernia repair, which likely reflects a lack of high-quality evidence within this field.

Comparing large pore lightweight mesh versus small pore heavyweight mesh in open mesh plug repair of primary and recurrent unilateral inguinal hernia - A questionnaire study for a retrospective analysis of a cohort of elective groin hernia patients using propensity score matching

PURPOSE

For surgical treatment of inguinal hernia, large-pore, lightweight mesh has been shown to offer advantages over small-pore, heavyweight options in terms of chronic post-operative inguinal pain, but without the disadvantage of having to deal with an increased recurrence rate. Limited data are available for the mesh plug repair technique. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to compare large-pore, lightweight mesh versus small-pore, heavyweight mesh for mesh plug repair with regard to chronic pain and recurrences in elective primary unilateral hernias. In addition, we report our experience in repairing recurrent hernias.

METHODS

Using a modified version of the questionnaire from the Danish Hernia Registry, two groups were surveyed: elective primary unilateral hernias and recurrent unilateral hernias. In both groups small-pore, heavyweight mesh (HWM) and lightweight, large-pore mesh (LWM) were compared with respect to chronic pain and recurrences. Propensity score matching (PS) was carried out on a pool of 1,782 patients. Effect sizes were assessed by using Cohen's d and Cramer's V.

RESULTS

If the questionnaire item 'lump/swelling' is considered as a surrogate for recurrence (clinically verified in our study), the results in primary hernias after HWM show a 6.0% recurrence rate and 7.3% after LWM (p = 0.487) with a mean follow up of 31,3 months in HWM and 29,2 months in LWM respectively. The questionnaire item 'pain impacting on work/leisure activities' was answered with Yes in 11.5% following HWM and in 10.5% following LWM (p = 0.665). After the evaluation of the overall surgical results, we did not find differences. Comparing primary and recurrent hernia repair we found below small effect size differences with respect to the items of the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LWM in repairing elective unilateral primary hernias by the mesh plug technique does not result in less chronic pain and more recurrences when compared with HWM. Recurrent hernias repaired by the mesh plug technique may have same outcomes like in primary hernia repair when considering the magnitude of effect sizes.

Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair

PURPOSE

The Open Lichtenstein technique, the Laparoscopic Trans-Abdominal PrePeritoneal (TAPP), the Totally Extra Peritoneal (TEP), and the robotic TAPP (rTAPP) are commonly performed. The aim of the present network meta-analysis was to globally compare short-term outcomes within these major surgical techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were consulted. A fully Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (51.037 patients) were included. Overall, 35.5% underwent Open, 33.5% TAPP, 30.7% TEP, and 0.3% rTAPP. The postoperative seroma risk ratio (RR) was comparable considering TAPP vs. Open (RR 0.91; 95% CrI 0.50-1.62), TEP vs. Open (RR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.32-1.33), TEP vs. TAPP (RR 0.70; 95% CrI 0.39-1.31), and rTAPP vs. Open (RR 0.98; 95% CrI 0.37-2.51). The postoperative chronic pain RR was similar for TAPP vs. Open (RR 0.53; 95% CrI 0.27-1.20), TEP vs. Open (RR 0.86; 95% CrI 0.48-1.16), and TEP vs. TAPP (RR 1.70; 95% CrI 0.63-3.20). The recurrence RR was comparable when comparing TAPP vs. Open (RR 0.96; 95% CrI 0.57-1.51), TEP vs. Open (RR 1.0; 95% CrI 0.65-1.61), TEP vs. TAPP (RR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.63-2.10), and rTAPP vs. Open (RR 0.98; 95% CrI 0.45-2.10). No differences were found in term of postoperative hematoma, surgical site infection, urinary retention, and hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that Open, TAPP, TEP, and rTAPP seem comparable in the short term. The surgical management of inguinal hernia is evolving and the effect of the adoption of innovative minimally invasive techniques should be further investigated in the long term. Ultimately, the choice of the most suitable treatment should be based on individual surgeon expertise and tailored on each patient.

Mesh versus non-mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001.Hernias are protrusions of all or part of an organ through the body wall that normally contains it. Groin hernias include inguinal (96%) and femoral (4%) hernias, and are often symptomatic with discomfort. They are extremely common, with an estimated lifetime risk in men of 27%. Occasionally they may present as emergencies with complications such as bowel incarceration, obstruction and strangulation. The definitive treatment of all hernias is surgical repair, inguinal hernia repair being one of the most common surgical procedures performed. Mesh (hernioplasty) and the traditional non-mesh repairs (herniorrhaphy) are commonly used, with an increasing preference towards mesh repairs in high-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of different inguinal and femoral hernia repair techniques in adults, specifically comparing closure with mesh versus without mesh. Outcomes include hernia recurrence, complications (including neurovascular or visceral injury, haematoma, seroma, testicular injury, infection, postoperative pain), mortality, duration of operation, postoperative hospital stay and time to return to activities of daily living.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 9 May 2018: Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950), Ovid Embase (from 1974) and Web of Science (from 1900). Furthermore, we checked the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials. We applied no language or publication restrictions. We also searched the reference lists of included trials and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of mesh compared to non-mesh inguinal or femoral hernia repairs in adults over the age of 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Where available, we collected information on adverse effects. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios, and where possible we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We presented continuous data as mean difference. Analysis of missing data was based on intention-to-treat principles, and we assessed heterogeneity using an evaluation of clinical and methodological diversity, Chi² test and I² statistic. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (6293 participants) in this review. All included studies specified inguinal hernias, and two studies reported that femoral hernias were included.Mesh repair probably reduces the risk of hernia recurrence compared to non-mesh repair (21 studies, 5575 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.80, I² = 44%, moderate-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, one hernia recurrence was prevented for every 46 mesh repairs compared with non-mesh repairs. Twenty-four studies (6293 participants) assessed a wide range of complications with varying follow-up times. Neurovascular and visceral injuries were more common in non-mesh repair groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76, I² = 0%, NNTB = 22, high-quality evidence). Wound infection was found slightly more commonly in the mesh group (20 studies, 4540 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.86, I² = 0%, NNTB = 200, low-quality evidence). Mesh repair reduced the risk of haematoma compared to non-mesh repair (15 studies, 3773 participants; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13, I² = 0%, NNTB = 143, low-quality evidence). Seromas probably occur more frequently with mesh repair than with non-mesh repair (14 studies, 2640 participants; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.59, I² = 0%, NNTB = 72, moderate-quality evidence), as does wound swelling (two studies, 388 participants; RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.02 to 20.48, I² = 33%, NNTB = 72, moderate-quality evidence). The comparative effect on wound dehiscence is uncertain due to wide confidence intervals (two studies, 329 participants; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.48, I² = 37% NNTB = 77, low-quality evidence). Testicular complications showed nearly equivocal results; they probably occurred slightly more often in the mesh group however the confidence interval around the effect was wide (14 studies, 3741 participants; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.76, I² = 0%, NNTB = 2000, low-quality evidence). Mesh reduced the risk of postoperative urinary retention compared to non-mesh (eight studies, 1539 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73, I² = 56%, NNTB = 16, moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative and chronic pain could not be compared due to variations in measurement methods and follow-up time (low-quality evidence).No deaths occurred during the follow-up periods reported in the seven studies (2546 participants) reporting this outcome (high-quality evidence).The average operating time was longer for non-mesh repairs by a mean of 4 minutes 22 seconds, despite wide variation across the studies regarding size and direction of effect, thus this result is uncertain (20 studies, 4148 participants; 95% CI -6.85 to -1.60, I²= 97%, very low-quality evidence). Hospital stay may be shorter with mesh repair, by 0.6 days (12 studies, 2966 participants; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.34, I² = 98%, low-quality evidence), and participants undergoing mesh repairs may return to normal activities of daily living a mean of 2.87 days sooner than those with non-mesh repair (10 studies, 3183 participants; 95% CI -4.42 to -1.32, I² = 96%, low-quality evidence), although the results of both these outcomes are also limited by wide variation in the size and direction of effect across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mesh and non-mesh repairs are effective surgical approaches in treating hernias, each demonstrating benefits in different areas. Compared to non-mesh repairs, mesh repairs probably reduce the rate of hernia recurrence, and reduce visceral or neurovascular injuries, making mesh repair a common repair approach. Mesh repairs may result in a reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to activities of daily living, but these results are uncertain due to variation in the results of the studies. Non-mesh repair is less likely to cause seroma formation and has been favoured in low-income countries due to low cost and reduced availability of mesh materials. Risk of bias in the included studies was low to moderate and generally handled well by study authors, with attention to details of allocation, blinding, attrition and reporting.

Comparison of Lichtenstein Repair and Mesh Plug Repair Methods in The Treatment of Indirect Inguinal Hernia

Objective: The lifetime risk to develop an inguinal hernia is 27%-43% for men and 3%-6% for women. Methods of hernia repair currently involve prosthetic mesh applications. The aim of this study is to compare the Lichtenstein repair and Mesh-plug repair methods in the surgical treatment of indirect inguinal hernias and to identify which of these two techniques is superior regarding its conferred advantages.

Materials and Methods: In this study, a total of 102 patients who were diagnosed with indirect inguinal hernia between the years 2014 and 2015 without a previous operation were analyzed. Patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair and Mesh-plug repair were compared, especially during operation time, hospital stay, postoperative pain and other aspects.

Results: The mean age of patients was 28.7 years (19-73). The mean duration of operations and hospitalizations was significantly shorter in patients who had undergone mesh-plug repair. Inguinal pain in the operation area on postoperative day one, two weeks and six months was significantly less in patients who had undergone mesh-plug repair. Patients were followed-up for two years.

Conclusion: We concluded that mesh-plug repair was superior to Lichtenstein repair regarding postoperative pain, quality of life of the patient, shorter duration of operation, and duration of hospital stay although the two methods were similar regarding both recurrence and complication rates. Considering this information, we suggest that mesh-plug repair can be used safely for the treatment of indirect inguinal hernias.

[Not Available]

Zusammenfassung. Chronische Schmerzen nach Inguinalhernienoperationen sind häufig. Die aktuelle Evidenz zeigt, dass die endoskopische Versorgung von Hernien mit einem Netz chronische postoperative Schmerzen verringert. Dieser Review zeigt mögliche Ursachen und therapeutische Optionen bei Patienten mit chronischen Schmerzen nach Hernienoperationen auf.