Meta-analysis of the outcomes of Trans Rectus Sheath Extra-Peritoneal Procedure (TREPP) for inguinal hernia. Author's reply

Sac invagination versus sac ligation in open Lichtenstein repair of indirect inguinal hernia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To compare the outcomes of sac invagination and sac ligation in patients undergoing open Lichtenstein repair of indirect inguinal hernia.

METHODS

A systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of sac invagination and sac ligation in patients undergoing open Lichtenstein repair of indirect inguinal hernia. Random effects modeling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

Analysis of 843 patients with 851 hernias from 6 randomized controlled trials suggested no difference between the sac invagination and sac ligation techniques in terms of recurrence (risk difference: 0.00, P = .91), chronic pain (risk difference: 0.00, P = .98), operative time (mean difference: -0.15, P = .89), hematoma (odds ratio: 0.93, P = .93), seroma (odds ratio: 1.00, P = 1.00), surgical site infection (odds ratio: 1.68, P = .40), or urinary retention (odds ratio: 0.85, P = .78); however, ligation of sac resulted in more early postoperative pain as measured by visual analog scale score at 6 hours postoperatively (mean difference: -0.92, P < .00001), at 12 hours postoperatively (mean difference: -0.94, P = .001), at 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference: -1.08, P < .00001), and on day 7 postoperatively (mean difference: -0.99, P = .009). The quality and certainty of the available evidence were moderate.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from randomized controlled trials with moderate certainty suggests that ligation of indirect inguinal hernia sac during open Lichtenstein repair may not improve the outcomes regarding recurrence, chronic pain, or operative complications but may result in more early postoperative pain. Future randomized controlled trials with more robust statistical power and methodological quality would help improve the available evidence's certainty.

Balloon dissection versus telescopic dissection during laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of balloon dissection and telescopic dissection in patients undergoing laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

A systematic review in accordance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted. A search of electronic information sources was conducted to identify all studies comparing the outcomes of balloon dissection and telescopic dissection in patients undergoing laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

A total of 936 patients from eight studies were included. The included population in both groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of operation time (MD: - 4.14 min, P = 0.05), conversion to another technique (RD: - 0.02, P = 0.29), recurrence (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.84), haematoma (OR: 1.34, P = 0.61), seroma (OR: 0.63, P = 0.56), surgical site infection (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), urinary retention (OR: 0.92, P = 0.86), postoperative pain score on day 1 (MD: - 0.16, P = 0.69) and day 7 (MD: - 0.16, P = 0.61). Trial sequential analysis of randomised trials suggested that evidence for operative time and conversion to other technique is subject to type 1 and type 2 error.

CONCLUSIONS

Balloon dissection and telescopic dissection during TEP inguinal hernia repair are comparable in terms of operative and postoperative outcomes. The available evidence for operative time and conversion to other technique is subject to type 1 and type 2 error. In presence of comparative clinical outcomes, the cost-effectiveness analysis in future studies may play an important role in determining the dissection technique of choice.

Posterior mesh inguinal hernia repairs: a propensity score matched analysis of laparoscopic and robotic versus open approaches

PURPOSE

International guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use.

RESULTS

Improvement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0-16.64) vs 10 (2.0-24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55-0.85]; p = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0-4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0-4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46-85]; p = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19-0.35]; p < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06-0.35]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers.