Laparoscopic Repair of Sportman's Hernia - The Trinidad Experience

A proposed algorithm for the treatment of core muscle injuries

In recent years, there has been increased awareness and treatment of groin injuries in athletes. These injuries have been associated with various terminologies including sports hernia, core muscle injury (CMI), athletic pubalgia and inguinal disruption, among others. Treatment of these injuries has been performed by both orthopaedic and general surgeons and may include a variety of procedures such as rectus abdominis repair, adductor lengthening, abdominal wall repair with or without mesh, and hip arthroscopy for the treatment of concomitant femoroacetabular impingement. Despite our increased knowledge of these injuries, there is still no universal terminology, diagnostic methodology or treatment for a CMI. The purpose of this review is to present a detailed treatment algorithm for physicians treating patients with signs and symptoms of a CMI. In doing so, we aim to clarify the various pathologies involved in CMI, eliminate vague terminology, and present a clear, stepwise approach for both diagnosis and treatment of these injuries.

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.