Laparoscopic approach in emergency for the treatment of acute incarcerated groin hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Suture repair versus mesh repair in elderly populations with incarcerated or strangulated groin hernia

Tension-free hernia repair is the gold standard for groin hernia repair. However, the optimal surgical treatment for incarcerated or strangulated groin hernia in elderly populations is controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of mesh repair and suture repair in the treatment of incarcerated or strangulated groin hernia in elderly patients. Patients ≥ 65 years who underwent urgent surgical repair for incarcerated or strangulated groin hernia from January 2012 to June 2022 were included. Patients' demographic data and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with limited life expectancy were screened from the elderly population for subgroup analysis. A total of 103 patients (median age: 84 years old, range 65-96; mean follow-up time: 36.8 ± 24.8 months) were included, involving 42 cases in the suture repair group and 61 cases in the mesh repair group. Suture repair and mesh repair had similar lengths of ICU and hospital stay, and rates of small bowel resection, chronic pain, surgical site infection, and surgical-related death. However, suture repair had a significantly higher recurrence rate than mesh repair (7% vs. 2%, P = 0.04). In our subgroup analysis, for patients with limited life expectancy (41 patients; median age: 88 years old, range: 80-96), suture repair had no statistical difference in postoperative outcomes compared with mesh repair. Mesh repair is suitable for elderly patients with acutely incarcerated or strangulated groin hernias. However, for elderly patients with limited life expectancy, suture repair and mesh repair showed similar clinical outcomes.

TEP or TAPP: who, when, and how?

Groin hernia repair is the most common procedure performed by general surgeons. The open mesh technique generally represents the main technique for an inguinal repair, but a different approach is often required. Laparoscopy was found to be the answer to minimizing the impact of the preperitoneal open techniques described by Nyhus and Stoppa. The introduction of the totally extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP) and transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) in the early 1990s started a new chapter in groin hernia surgery. The minimally invasive techniques vs. open mesh, and then one against the other, soon became a hot topic among abdominal wall surgeons. With time, the number of procedures and indications increased and are still increasing. This review aims to provide an overview of the two main laparoscopic techniques for groin hernia repair, answering the following questions: Who should perform them? What is the learning curve required to minimize complications and optimize operative time? When is a minimally invasive approach indicated, and which one (both in elective and in emergency setting)? How are they performed? The standard techniques have been described in detail, and personal observations from an abdominal wall surgery referral center were added. The main reviews from the early 2000s up to date, which compared the techniques, were analyzed, and the results reported, confirming the comparable safety and efficacy of both these techniques.

Management of groin hernias in emergency setting: differences in indications and outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach. A single-center retrospective experience

PURPOSE

The use of minimally invasive groin hernia repair techniques in an emergency setting is still debated and its widespread is limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) technique in the treatment of inguinal and femoral hernias in emergency setting based on our experience, comparing indications and outcomes with the open technique.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed including all patients with incarcerated and/or strangulated groin hernia who underwent emergency surgery from November 2019 to September 2022. Perioperative variables and short- and long-term outcomes were examined. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test for nominal variables and Student's t test for continuous ones. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were included: 29 patients were treated with TAPP technique (Tapp group) and 37 with open technique plus diagnostic laparoscopy (Open group). Patients in the TAPP group were younger, had less severe clinical scenarios, and had a trend for lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, whereas ASA score and BMI were similar. The small bowel was more frequently herniated in the open group. Bilateral hernia repair was performed in 20.69% of patients in the Tapp group versus 0% in the Open group (p = 0.004). Bowel resection was more frequent in the open group (48.65% vs 0% of the Tapp group, p < 0.001) length of surgery was comparable in the two groups. In the Tapp group, the length of hospitalization was significantly shorter (2.59 ± 2.28 days vs. 9.08 ± 14.48 days; p = 0.023). Postoperative complications, according to Clavien-Dindo, were more severe in Open group where there were two deaths. There were no differences in the number of readmission and re-operations at 30 days and in the recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency repair of inguinal and femoral hernias using TAPP is a valuable option, safe and feasible in selected patients. In this series, indications for TAPP were reserved to younger patients with less comorbidities and less severe clinical scenario. Future randomized studies are needed to compare TAPP with open emergency hernia surgery in all settings. Potential advantages of TAPP are the reduction of postoperative complications, earlier recovery, and the possibility of bilateral treatment.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Mesh repair versus non-mesh repair for incarcerated and strangulated groin hernia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mesh repair in incarcerated or strangulated groin hernia is controversial, especially when bowel resection is required. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing mesh and non-mesh repair in patients undergoing emergency groin hernia repair.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of databases to identify studies comparing mesh and primary suture repair of patients with incarcerated or strangulated inguinal or femoral hernias who underwent emergency surgery. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.

RESULTS

1095 studies were screened and 101 were thoroughly reviewed. Twenty observational studies and four randomized controlled trials comprising 12,402 patients were included. We found that mesh-based repair had reduced recurrence (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19, 0.67; P = 0.001; I2 = 35%), length of hospital stay (OR - 1.02; 95% CI - 1.87, - 0.17; P = 0.02; I2 = 94%) and operative time (OR - 9.21; 95% CI - 16.82, - 1.61; P = 0.02; I2 = 95%) without increasing surgical site infection, mortality or postoperative complications such as seroma, chronic, ileus or urinary retention. In the subgroup analysis of patients that underwent bowel resection, we found that mesh repair was associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.04, 2.91; P = 0.04; I2 = 9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh repair for incarcerated and strangulated groin hernias reduces recurrence without an increase in postoperative complications and should be considered in clean cases. However, in the setting of bowel resection, mesh repair might increase the incidence of surgical site infection.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Approach in Emergent Inguinal Hernia: Our Experience and Review of Literature

There is currently no consensus or homogeneous recommendation about the role of the laparoscopic approach in emergent inguinal hernia surgery. The aim of this manuscript is showing our experience and results of laparoscopic approach for emergent groin hernia repair comparing with open approach. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database between January 2011 and December 2021 of acute incarcerated groin hernia that were operated at Virgen del Rocio University Hospital. In this period, they were identified 463 patients with groin hernia that required an emergency repair. 454 patients underwent open surgery (group 1) and 36 patients underwent laparoscopic approach (TAPP procedure) (group 2). Median length stay was 1 day in lap group and 2 days in open approach. Reintervention was necessary in 20 cases (4.40%) from group 1 and one (2.27%) from group 2. In laparoscopic approach, no mortality was described but in open approach, 10 patients (2.20%) died. Globally, 58 cases (12.77%) from group 1 and six patients (16.66%) from group 2 presented any complication. Wound infection was higher in group of open repairs (5.94% vs. 2.77%). Non-surgical complications were higher in open approach (19 vs. 0). There is no statistical significance in any of these items. Laparoscopic approach is a safe, feasible and effective therapeutic option for the treatment of incarcerated groin hernia that require emergency surgery, but prospective and randomized comparative studies are needed to establish the best approach.