; Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group. Cost–utility analysis of open versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Cost-Utility Analysis of Open Hernia Operations in Bulgaria

Background: Hernia surgery procedures are among the most frequently performed in Bulgaria. An open, mesh-based repair is a standard method for hernia repair. From a societal perspective, a cost-utility analysis of open hernia surgical procedures performed in Bulgaria is necessary in light of the economic and social burden that poses this health issue. The aim of the study was to perform an economic evaluation of the quality of health results after a conventional elective hernia operation with implanted light and standard meshes.

Methods: The cost of elective hernia operation with standard and light meshes was calculated as a sum of direct and indirect costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for conventional hernia operation was calculated as health improvement was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) reported in a previous study. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was applied to evaluate the changes in the ICER values in case of planned inguinal hernia operation.

Results: The cost of operation with standard meshes is less than operation with light meshes. The difference is in the range 55-200 EUR. The additional costs per one QALY gained for light meshes are far below the recommended threshold values which identified these meshes as cost-effective.

Conclusions: The study presents evidence for cost-effectiveness of light meshes.

Clinical outcomes and quality of life associated with the use of a biosynthetic mesh for complex ventral hernia repair: analysis of the "Italian Hernia Club" registry

With the development of newer meshes and approaches to hernia repair, it is currently difficult to evaluate their performances while considering the patients' perspective. The aim of the study was to assess the clinical outcomes and quality of life consequences of abdominal hernia repairs performed in Italy using Phasix and Phasix ST meshes through the analysis of real-world data to support the choice of new generation biosynthetic meshes. An observational, prospective, multicentre study was conducted in 10 Italian clinical centres from May 2015 to February 2018 and in 15 Italian clinical centres from March 2018 to May 2019. The evaluation focused on patients with VHWG grade II-III who underwent primary ventral hernia repair or incisional hernia intervention with a follow-up of at least 18 months. Primary endpoints included complications' rates, and secondary outcomes focused on patient quality of life as measured by the EuroQol questionnaire. Seventy-five patients were analysed. The main complications were: 1.3% infected mesh removal, 4.0% superficial infection requiring procedural intervention, 0% deep/organ infection, 8.0% recurrence, 5.3% reintervention, and 6.7% drained seroma. The mean quality of life utility values ranged from 0.768 (baseline) to 0.967 (36 months). To date, Phasix meshes have proven to be suitable prostheses in preventing recurrence, with promising outcomes in terms of early and late complications and in improving patient quality of life.

International guidelines for groin hernia management

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

METHODS

An expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group's first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as "strong" (recommendations) or "weak" (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term "should" refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores. The risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with "watchful waiting" since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment should be tailored to the surgeon's expertise, patient- and hernia-related characteristics and local/national resources. Furthermore, patient health-related, life style and social factors should all influence the shared decision-making process leading up to hernia management. Mesh repair is recommended as first choice, either by an open procedure or a laparo-endoscopic repair technique. One standard repair technique for all groin hernias does not exist. It is recommended that surgeons/surgical services provide both anterior and posterior approach options. Lichtenstein and laparo-endoscopic repair are best evaluated. Many other techniques need further evaluation. Provided that resources and expertise are available, laparo-endoscopic techniques have faster recovery times, lower chronic pain risk and are cost effective. There is discussion concerning laparo-endoscopic management of potential bilateral hernias (occult hernia issue). After patient consent, during TAPP, the contra-lateral side should be inspected. This is not suggested during unilateral TEP repair. After appropriate discussions with patients concerning results tissue repair (first choice is the Shouldice technique) can be offered. Day surgery is recommended for the majority of groin hernia repair provided aftercare is organized. Surgeons should be aware of the intrinsic characteristics of the meshes they use. Use of so-called low-weight mesh may have slight short-term benefits like reduced postoperative pain and shorter convalescence, but are not associated with better longer-term outcomes like recurrence and chronic pain. Mesh selection on weight alone is not recommended. The incidence of erosion seems higher with plug versus flat mesh. It is suggested not to use plug repair techniques. The use of other implants to replace the standard flat mesh in the Lichtenstein technique is currently not recommended. In almost all cases, mesh fixation in TEP is unnecessary. In both TEP and TAPP it is recommended to fix mesh in M3 hernias (large medial) to reduce recurrence risk. Antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in low-risk environments is not recommended in open surgery. In laparo-endoscopic repair it is never recommended. Local anesthesia in open repair has many advantages, and its use is recommended provided the surgeon is experienced in this technique. General anesthesia is suggested over regional in patients aged 65 and older as it might be associated with fewer complications like myocardial infarction, pneumonia and thromboembolism. Perioperative field blocks and/or subfascial/subcutaneous infiltrations are recommended in all cases of open repair. Patients are recommended to resume normal activities without restrictions as soon as they feel comfortable. Provided expertise is available, it is suggested that women with groin hernias undergo laparo-endoscopic repair in order to decrease the risk of chronic pain and avoid missing a femoral hernia. Watchful waiting is suggested in pregnant women as groin swelling most often consists of self-limited round ligament varicosities. Timely mesh repair by a laparo-endoscopic approach is suggested for femoral hernias provided expertise is available. All complications of groin hernia management are discussed in an extensive chapter on the topic. Overall, the incidence of clinically significant chronic pain is in the 10-12% range, decreasing over time. Debilitating chronic pain affecting normal daily activities or work ranges from 0.5 to 6%. Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is defined as bothersome moderate pain impacting daily activities lasting at least 3 months postoperatively and decreasing over time. CPIP risk factors include: young age, female gender, high preoperative pain, early high postoperative pain, recurrent hernia and open repair. For CPIP the focus should be on nerve recognition in open surgery and, in selected cases, prophylactic pragmatic nerve resection (planned resection is not suggested). It is suggested that CPIP management be performed by multi-disciplinary teams. It is also suggested that CPIP be managed by a combination of pharmacological and interventional measures and, if this is unsuccessful, followed by, in selected cases (triple) neurectomy and (in selected cases) mesh removal. For recurrent hernia after anterior repair, posterior repair is recommended. If recurrence occurs after a posterior repair, an anterior repair is recommended. After a failed anterior and posterior approach, management by a specialist hernia surgeon is recommended. Risk factors for hernia incarceration/strangulation include: female gender, femoral hernia and a history of hospitalization related to groin hernia. It is suggested that treatment of emergencies be tailored according to patient- and hernia-related factors, local expertise and resources. Learning curves vary between different techniques. Probably about 100 supervised laparo-endoscopic repairs are needed to achieve the same results as open mesh surgery like Lichtenstein. It is suggested that case load per surgeon is more important than center volume. It is recommended that minimum requirements be developed to certify individuals as expert hernia surgeon. The same is true for the designation "Hernia Center". From a cost-effectiveness perspective, day-case laparoscopic IH repair with minimal use of disposables is recommended. The development and implementation of national groin hernia registries in every country (or region, in the case of small country populations) is suggested. They should include patient follow-up data and account for local healthcare structures. A dissemination and implementation plan of the guidelines will be developed by global (HerniaSurge), regional (international societies) and local (national chapters) initiatives through internet websites, social media and smartphone apps. An overarching plan to improve access to safe IH surgery in low-resource settings (LRSs) is needed. It is suggested that this plan contains simple guidelines and a sustainability strategy, independent of international aid. It is suggested that in LRSs the focus be on performing high-volume Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia using low-cost mesh. Three chapters discuss future research, guidelines for general practitioners and guidelines for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The HerniaSurge Group has developed these extensive and inclusive guidelines for the management of adult groin hernia patients. It is hoped that they will lead to better outcomes for groin hernia patients wherever they live. More knowledge, better training, national audit and specialization in groin hernia management will standardize care for these patients, lead to more effective and efficient healthcare and provide direction for future research.

Equal Results with Laparoscopic and Shouldice Repairs of Primary Inguinal Hernia in Men. Report from a Prospective Randomised Study

Aim:

To compare the laparoscopic and Shouldice techniques for repair of inguinal hernia.

Material:

261 healthy men over 50 years with primary, unilateral inguinal hernia were randomly allocated to laparoscopic (total extraperitoneal approach, TEP) treatment (n = 131) or to a modified Shouldice technique (n = 130).

Results:

Apart from a longer operative time in the laparoscopic group, there were no significant differences between the two methods with regard to perioperative complications, hospital stay, recurrencies or pain in the groin.

Conclusions:

Results following the total extraperitoneal laparoscopic and the Shouldice technique do not differ significantly 2 years after hernia repair.

The Onstep Method for Inguinal Hernia Repair: Operative Technique and Technical Tips

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures and several different surgical techniques are available. The Onstep method is a new promising technique. The technique is simple with a number of straightforward steps. This paper provides a full description of the technique together with tips and tricks to make it easy and without complications.

Meta-analysis and review of prospective randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein techniques in recurrent inguinal hernia repair

PURPOSE

The hypothesis of this meta-analysis was to assess whether laparoscopic approach shows real benefits over Lichtenstein technique in recurrent inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

A literature search for prospective randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein procedure in recurrent inguinal hernia repair was performed. Trials were reviewed for primary outcome measures: re-recurrence, chronic inguinal pain and ischemic orchitis; and for secondary outcome measures. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables and odds ratio for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

Seven studies comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein technique were considered suitable for the pooled analysis. Overall 647 patients with recurrent inguinal hernia were randomized to either laparoscopic repair (333, 51.5 %, transabdominal preperitoneal approach, TAPP and totally extraperitoneal approach, TEP) or anterior open repair (314, 48.5 %, Lichtenstein operation). Patients who underwent laparoscopic repair experienced significantly less chronic pain (9.2 % vs. 21.5 %, p = 0.003). Patients of the laparoscopic group had a significantly earlier return to normal daily activities (13.9 vs. 18.4 days, SMD = -0.68, 95 % CI = -0.94 to -0.43, p < 0.000001). Operative time was significantly longer in laparoscopic operations (62.9 vs. 54.2 min, SMD 0.46, 95 % CI 0.03, 0.89; p = 0.04). No other differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy showed reduced chronic inguinal pain and an earlier return to normal daily activities but significantly longer operative time. Despite the expected advantages, the choice between laparoscopy and other techniques still depends on local expertise availability. Only dedicated centers are able to routinely offer laparoscopy for recurrent inguinal hernia repair.

Cost-utility analysis comparing heavy-weight and light-weight mesh in laparoscopic surgery for unilateral inguinal hernias

BACKGROUND

Hernioplasty is one of the most frequent surgeries in the UK. Light-weight mesh (LWM) has the potential to reduce chronic groin pain but its cost-effectiveness compared with heavy-weight mesh (HWM) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to conduct a cost-utility analysis between laparoscopic hernioplasty with HWM and LWM for unilateral inguinal hernias.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated costs and health outcomes over a period of 1 year (2012) from the societal and National Health Service (NHS) perspective (England). The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Surgery results were gleaned from the randomized control trial by Bittner et al. Other input parameters were drawn from the literature and public sources of the NHS.

RESULTS

From the societal perspective, LWM induces lower incremental costs (-£88.85) than HWM but yields a slightly smaller incremental effect (-0.00094 QALYs). The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HWM compared with LWM amounts to £94,899 per QALY, while the probabilistic ICER is £118,750 (95 % confidence interval [CI] £57,603-180,920). Owing to the withdrawal of productivity losses from the NHS perspective, LWM causes higher incremental costs (£13.09) and an inferior incremental effect (-0.00093), resulting in a dominance of HWM over LWM (ICER 95 % CI -£12,382 to -£21,590).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no support for the adoption of LWM as standard treatment from an NHS perspective. However, given the small differences between HWM and LWM, LWM has at least the potential of improving patient outcomes and reducing expenditure from the societal perspective.

The effectiveness of early lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness. Although primary open-angle glaucoma is more common, primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) is more likely to result in irreversible blindness. By 2020, 5·3 million people worldwide will be blind because of PACG. The current standard care for PACG is a stepped approach of a combination of laser iridotomy surgery (to open the drainage angle) and medical treatment (to reduce intraocular pressure). If these treatments fail, glaucoma surgery (eg, trabeculectomy) is indicated. It has been proposed that, because the lens of the eye plays a major role in the mechanisms leading to PACG, early clear lens extraction will improve glaucoma control by opening the drainage angle. This procedure might reduce the need for drugs and glaucoma surgery, maintain good visual acuity, and improve quality of life compared with standard care.EAGLE aims to evaluate whether early lens extraction improves patient-reported, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness, compared with standard care.

METHODS/DESIGN

EAGLE is a multicentre pragmatic randomized trial. All people presenting to the recruitment centres in the UK and east Asia with newly diagnosed PACG and who are at least 50 years old are eligible.The primary outcomes are EQ-5D, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Other outcomes are: vision and glaucoma-specific patient-reported outcomes, visual acuity, visual field, angle closure, number of medications, additional surgery (e.g., trabeculectomy), costs to the health services and patients, and adverse events.A single main analysis will be done at the end of the trial, after three years of follow-up. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomized (intention to treat). 400 participants (200 in each group) will be recruited, to have 90% power at 5% significance level to detect a difference in EQ-5D score between the two groups of 0·05, and a mean difference in intraocular pressure of 1·75 mm Hg. The study will have 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in the glaucoma surgery rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN44464607.

Follow-up period of 13 years after endoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernias: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic inguinal hernia repair was introduced in the Netherlands in the early 1990s. The authors' institution was among the first to adopt this technique. In this study, long-term hernia recurrence among patients treated by the total extraperitoneal (TEP) approach for an inguinal hernia is described. A cohort study was conducted.

METHODS

Between January 1993 and December 1997, 346 TEP hernia repairs were performed for 318 patients. After a mean follow-up period of 13-years, a senior resident examined each patient. An experienced surgeon subsequently examined the patients with a diagnosis of recurrent hernia. Data were collected on an intention-to-treat basis, meaning that conversions were included in the analysis. Univariant tests were used to analyze age older than 50 years, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, smoking habit, hernia type, history of open hernia repair, conversion, and surgeon as potential risk factors.

RESULTS

The analysis included 191 patients (62%) with 213 hernias. Of the original 318 patients, 59 patients died, and 68 were lost to follow-up evaluation. Perioperatively, 105 lateral, 55 medial, and 53 pantalon hernias were observed. Of the 213 hernias, 176 were primary and 37 were recurrent. The overall recurrence rate was 8.9% (8.5% for primary and 10.8% for recurrent hernias). Of the total study group, 48% of the patients experienced a bilateral inguinal hernia during their lifetime. No predicting factor for recurrent hernia could be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current long-term results for TEP repair of primary and secondary inguinal hernia show an overall recurrence rate of 8.9%, which is slightly higher than in previous studies. The thorough examination at follow-up assessment, the learning curve effect, and the intention-to-treat-analysis may have influenced the observed recurrence rate. Also, the percentage of bilateral hernias was higher than known to date. Therefore, examination of the contralateral side should be standard procedure.

Costing and cost analysis in randomized controlled trials: caveat emptor

This article provides an overview of the central issues regarding cost valuation and analysis for a decision maker's evaluation of costing performed within randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Costing involves specific choices for valuation and analysis that involve trade-offs. Understanding these choices and their implications is necessary for proper evaluation of how costs are valued and analyzed within an RCT and cannot be assessed through a checklist of adherence to general principles. Resource costing, the most common method of costing, involves measuring medical service use in study case report forms and translating this use into a cost by multiplying the number of units of each medical service by price weights for those services. A choice must be made as to how detailed the measurement of resources will be. Micro-costing improves the specificity of the cost estimate, but it is often impractical to precisely measure resources at this level and the price weights for these micro-units may not be available. Gross-costing may be more practical, and price weights are often easier to find and are more reliable, but important resource differences between treatment groups may be lost in the bundling of resources. Price weights can either be nationally determined or centre specific, but the appropriate price weight will depend on perspective, convenience, completeness and accuracy. Identifying the resource types and the appropriate price weights for these resources are the essential elements to an accurate valuation of costs. Once medical services are valued, the resulting individual patient cost estimates must be analysed. The difference in the mean cost between treatment groups is the important summary statistic for cost-effectiveness analysis from both the budgetary and the social perspectives. The statistical challenges with cost data typically stem from its skewed distribution and the resulting possibility that the sample mean may be inefficient and possibly inappropriate for statistical inference. Multivariable analysis of cost is useful, even if the data come from an RCT, but the same distributional problems that affect univariate tests of cost also affect use of cost as a dependent variable in a multivariable regression analysis. The generalized linear model (GLM) overcomes many of the problems of more common cost models, but caution must be used when applying this model because it is prone to mis-specification and precision losses in data with a heavy-tailed log error term. Attention to the appropriate cost valuation and analysis techniques reviewed here will help bring the same level of rigor and attention to the methodological issues in cost valuation as is currently applied to clinical evidence within RCTs.

Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair

Inguinal hernias are common, with a lifetime risk of 27% in men and 3% in women. Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common operations in general surgery. Despite more than 200 years of experience, the optimal surgical approach to inguinal hernia remains controversial. Surgeons and patients face many decisions when it comes to inguinal hernias: repair or no repair, mesh or no mesh, what kind of mesh, open or laparoscopic, extraperitoneal or transabdominal, and so forth. Inguinal hernia repairs have morbidity and recurrence rates that are not inconsequential. The search for the gold standard of repair continues.

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

The safest and most effective inguinal hernia repair (laparoscopic versus open mesh) is being debated. As the authors point out, the former accounts for the minority of hernia repairs performed in the United States and around the world. The reasons for this are a demonstration in the literature of increased operative times, increased costs, and a longer learning curve. But the laparoscopic approach has clear advantages, including less acute and chronic postoperative pain, shorter convalescence, and earlier return to work. This article describes the transabdominal preperitoneal and totally extraperitoneal techniques, provides indications and contraindications for laparoscopic repair, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each technique, and provides an overview of the literature comparing tension-free open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life-year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery was on average pounds 300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30 percent chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay pounds 30,000 for a life-year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits after laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes, and an additional pounds 300 per patient. A judgment is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.

Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair Versus Open Lichtenstein Hernia Repair: Results and Complications

Whereas open Lichtenstein inguinal herniorrhaphy is generally accepted as a safe, well-understood method with a high success rate, the laparoscopic repair of a inguinal hernia is a fairly recent technique. Although the laparoscopic approach to a hernia repair procedure is associated with less pain and faster recovery than open repair, many surgeons are not familiar with this technique owing to technical demands and a long learning curve. This study compares the results and complications between open tension-free mesh (Lichtenstein) repair and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair. The study cohort was comprised of 345 consecutive patients who underwent an inguinal herniorraphy procedure. An open hernia repair was performed on one group of patients (n = 233), whereas TEP repair was performed on the other (n = 112), and then the comparison of intra- and postoperative complications and results obtained from both techniques was done. The mean hospital stay was similar in both groups. The average operative time in the TEP group was 58.6 +/- 18.1 minutes, and the average operative time in the open group was 58.2 +/- 17.8 minutes. There was no difference in postoperative complication rates between the two groups, except for urinary retention, which patients who underwent TEP repair were more likely to get. The following major complications were recorded: 2 cases of urinary bladder perforation-1 during TEP repair and the other during Lichtenstein repair, but both with good postoperative outcome-and 1 case of pneumothorax, which occurred during the TEP procedure. Despite the fact that TEP is a demanding procedure, it may be performed efficiently with an acceptable operating time and a low complication rate.

Experience of laparoscopic hernia repair in a laparoscopically oriented unit of a large community hospital

We describe a consecutive series of 258 laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs in 189 patients from January 1997 to December 2004. Early results, complications, and follow-up were collected prospectively. Patients were followed in the outpatient clinic and contacted by phone at the time of this review. Three trocars were employed. The polypropylene mesh was inserted through the periumbilical trocar and fixed in the properitoneal space using titanium clips. There were no conversions and the mean operative time was 88 minutes (including bilateral cases). We had no major intraoperative accidents, and only 12 minor postoperative complications (4 urinary retentions, 6 seromas, and 2 cases of prolonged pain). Walking, hospital discharge, and return to activities were prompt, with a mean hospital stay of 1.7 days, and an average time of absence from work of 16 days. There have been 11 (4%) documented recurrences during long-term follow-up (mean, 62 months). The technique appears safe and efficacious even in a community hospital with a large laparoscopic experience.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of local, regional and general anaesthesia for inguinal hernia repair using data from a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Inguinal hernia repair is a common operation in general surgery and can be performed under local, regional or general anaesthesia. This multicentre randomized trial was undertaken to compare the costs of the three anaesthetic methods in general surgical practice.

METHODS

Between January 1999 and December 2001, 616 patients at ten hospitals who underwent primary inguinal hernia repair were randomized to local, regional or general anaesthesia. The primary endpoints were direct costs. Secondary endpoints were indirect costs and recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Total intraoperative, as well as total early postoperative, data showed local anaesthesia to have significant cost advantages over regional and general anaesthesia (P < 0.001). The advantage was also significant for total hospital and total healthcare costs (P < 0.001), whereas there was no significant difference between regional and general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The use of local anaesthesia for inguinal hernia repair was significantly less expensive than regional or general anaesthesia.

The role of endoscopic extraperitoneal herniorrhaphy: where do we stand in 2005?

Inguinal hernia repair is a common surgical procedure, but the most effective surgical technique remains controversial. The evolution of laparoscopic techniques has allowed reproduction of open preperitoneal repair via an endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) approach. More recently, the advent of comprehensive training in laparoscopy has allowed TEP to continue evolving as the feasibility of this approach gains recognition as a preferable technique. Once considered very difficult to learn, TEP currently is adequately taught in many surgical training programs. This report reviews the fundamentals and details various modifications that make this procedure more desirable than open procedures and other laparoscopic techniques. A resultant decrease in operative time, cost of the procedure, and morbidity to the patient is routine. In addition, the authors review their institutional experience and examine other current evidence-based data.

Open or endoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of surgeons currently perform endoscopic hernia surgery using a total extraperitoneal (TEP) approach, reviews published to date are based mainly on trials that compare laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair with various types of open inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

A qualitative analysis of randomized trials comparing TEP with open mesh or sutured repair.

RESULTS

In this review, 4,231 patients were included in 23 trials. In 10 of 15 trials, TEP repair was associated with longer surgery time than open repair. A shorter postoperative hospital stay after TEP repair than after open repair was reported in 6 of 11 trials. In 8 of 9 trials, the time until return to work was significantly shorter after TEP repair. Hospital costs were significantly higher for TEP than for open repair in all four trials that included an economic evaluation. Most trials (n = 14) reported no differences in subsequent recurrence rates between TEP and open repair.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed that endoscopic TEP repair is associated with longer surgery time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, earlier return to work, and recurrence rates similar to those for open inguinal hernia repair. The procedure involves greater expenses for hospitals, but appears to be cost effective from a societal perspective. The TEP technique is a serious option for mesh repair of primary hernias.

Laparoscopic vs conventional tension free inguinal herniorrhaphy: 2005 Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) annual meeting debate

This report summarizes the 2005 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons' inguinal herniorrhaphy debate. Most inguinal herniorrhaphies in the United States are performed using one of several prosthesis-based, tension-free (TFR) procedures. Approximately 15% of the procedures used are laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphies (LIH). Technical ease, lower cost, and local anesthesia are the major advantages attributed to TFR, whereas superior cosmesis, less perioperative pain, and a faster return to normal activity is attributed to LIH. The overall cost-benefit ratio, incidence of chronic pain syndromes, and relevance of a recent major trial could not be entirely settled in this debate. The importance of adequate training for surgeons undertaking LIH cannot be overemphasized. Experienced surgeons displaying equivalent results for LIH and TFR are justified in offering LIH to patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernias.

Observation or operation for patients with an asymptomatic inguinal hernia: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Many patients with an inguinal hernia are asymptomatic or have little in the way of symptoms from their hernia. Repair is often associated with long-term chronic pain and has a recurrence rate of 5% to 10%. Our aim was to compare operation with a wait-and-see policy in patients with an asymptomatic hernia.

METHODS

A total of 160 male patients 55 years or older were randomly assigned to observation or operation. Patients were assessed clinically and sent questionnaires at 6 months and 1 year. The primary endpoint was pain and general health status at 12 months; other outcome measures included costs to the health service and the rate of operation for a new symptom or complication.

RESULTS

At 12 months, there were no significant differences between the randomized groups of observation or operation, in visual analogue pain scores at rest, 3.7 mm versus 5.2 mm (mean difference, -1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), -4.8 to 1.6, P = 0.34), or on moving, 7.6 mm versus 5.7 mm (mean difference, -1.9; 95% CI, -6.1 to 2.4, P = 0.39). Also, the number of patients 29 versus 24 (difference in proportion, 8%; 95% CI, -7% to 23%, P = 0.31), who recorded pain on moving and the number taking regular analgesia, 9 versus 17 (difference in proportion, -10%; 95% CI, -21% to 2%, P = 0.14) was similar. At 6 months, there were significant improvements in most of the dimensions of the SF-36 for the operation group, while at 12 months although the trend remained the same the differences were only significant for change in health (mean difference, 7.3; 95% CI, 0.4 to 14.3, P = 0.039). The rate of crossover from observation to operation 23 patients at a median follow-up of 574 days was higher than predicted. The observation group also suffered 3 serious hernia-related adverse events compared with none in the operation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Repair of an asymptomatic inguinal hernia does not affect the rate of long-term chronic pain and may be beneficial to patients in improving overall health and reducing potentially serious morbidity.

Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open mesh hernia operation: results of a Department of Veterans Affairs randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence comparing laparoscopic versus open hernia repair has varied with time and with changes in techniques used. Cost effectiveness is an important consideration when evidence for predominance of one surgical technique is lacking. Current cost estimates of hernia repair are not available.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a cost effectiveness analysis within a randomized controlled trial comparing open (OPEN) versus laparoscopic (LAP) hernia repair using mesh at 14 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, with 2-year followup for each patient. Between January 1999 and November 2001, 2,164 men with inguinal hernia were randomized and 1,983 had an operation; 1,395 patients (708 OPEN and 687 LAP) with outpatient hernia operations were included in the cost effectiveness analysis. Outcomes included surgical and postoperative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Over 2 years, LAP cost an average of $638 more than OPEN. QALYs at 2 years were similar, resulting in $45,899 per QALY gained (95% CI: -$669,045, $722,457). The probability that LAP is cost effective at the $50,000 per QALY level (slightly more costly but more effective), was 51%. For unilateral primary and unilateral recurrent hernia repair, the probabilities that LAP is cost effective at the $50,000 per QALY level were 64% and 81%, respectively. For bilateral hernia repair, OPEN was less costly and more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, laparoscopic hernia repair is not cost effective compared with open repair. For patients with unilateral (primary or recurrent) hernia, laparoscopic repair is a cost effective treatment option.

Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

As a consequence of the development of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the late 1980s, diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy has now become an integral part of the average general surgeon's practice. Many conventional operations have been successfully adapted for the laparoscopic approach. A laparoscopic operation is unquestionably the surgical procedure of choice for gastroesophageal reflux disease and removal of the gallbladder, spleen, or adrenal gland unless specific contraindications are present. However, the value of laparoscopic techniques for other operations remains controversial within the surgical community. Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy (LIH) is a case in point. Frequent reanalysis of the controversial procedures such as laparoscopic herniorrhaphy is especially important because videoscopic operations remain in their developmental stages and thus continue to evolve. With this in mind, the purpose of this review was to examine the current state of the art of laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy in relationship to its conventional counterparts.

Cure chirurgicale des hernies inguinales de l’adulte

Inguinal hernia repair is the most commonly performed surgical procedure. Nearly one out of three men between 20 and 60 years of age will undergo hernia repair. Multiple surgical techniques are available which have comparable clinical outcomes but which differ in their functional results and economic impact. Despite an extensive surgical literature, no consensus exists regarding an optimal technique. This review aims to compare the indications for the three most common techniques: 1) the Shouldice repair, 2) the Lichtenstein repair, and 3) the laparoscopic hernia repair. To begin with, we present the operative principals of each repair along with criteria for evaluation of outcomes. Evidence-based outcomes data are then presented. We then address the choice of a surgical technique for everyday practice based on these factors. Finally, we propose avenues for future clinical research which may improve clinical, functional, and economic results in the repair of inguinal hernia of the adult.

Costs and quality of life after endoscopic repair of inguinal hernia vs open tension-free repair: a review

BACKGROUND

The ongoing debate about the relative merits of endoscopic (EH) vs open mesh herniorrhaphy (OH) prompts the need for comparisons of outcome measures other than recurrence. Therefore, we reviewed data on the costs, time to return to work, quality of life (QoL), and pain associated with EH and OH.

METHODS

Studies comparing EH to OH and explicitly involving costs or QoL were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included. Direct in-hospital costs were higher for unilateral EH. Direct out-of-hospital costs were lower after EH in some studies. Indirect costs were lower for EH. Total costs were higher for EH in three studies and lower in one study. With EH, QoL was better, pain was less, operating time was longer, and time return to work and other activities was shorter.

CONCLUSION

From a societal perspective, EH entails costs similar to OH but offers extra benefits to the patient in terms of QoL and pain.

Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility

In trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis baseline mean utility values are invariably imbalanced between treatment arms. A patient's baseline utility is likely to be highly correlated with their quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the follow-up period, not least because it typically contributes to the QALY calculation. Therefore, imbalance in baseline utility needs to be accounted for in the estimation of mean differential QALYs, and failure to control for this imbalance can result in a misleading incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. This paper discusses the approaches that have been used in the cost-effectiveness literature to estimate absolute and differential mean QALYs alongside randomised trials, and illustrates the implications of baseline mean utility imbalance for QALY calculation. Using data from a recently conducted trial-based cost-effectiveness study and a micro-simulation exercise, the relative performance of alternative estimators is compared, showing that widely used methods to calculate differential QALYs provide incorrect results in the presence of baseline mean utility imbalance regardless of whether these differences are formally statistically significant. It is demonstrated that multiple regression methods can be usefully applied to generate appropriate estimates of differential mean QALYs and an associated measure of sampling variability, while controlling for differences in baseline mean utility between treatment arms in the trial.

Recurrent inguinal hernia: a ten-year review

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the results obtained in recurrent inguinal hernia repair over the past ten years in a general hospital using laparoscopic (LAP) and open tension-free mesh (Lichtenstein) procedures.

METHODS

A prospective controlled study with 258 recurrent inguinal hernias in 235 patients over a ten-year period. The main outcome measurements were recurrence rate, operating time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and cost.

RESULTS

There were 10 recurrences (4.3%): 7 in the Lichtenstein group (5.7%) and 3 (2.2%) in the LAP group (P = nonsignificant [NS]). There were 15 (12.2%) postoperative complications in the Lichtenstein group and 6 (4.4%) in the LAP group (P =0.04). The operating room costs were higher in the LAP group, but this difference was offset by a significantly shorter hospital stay, shorter operating time, and earlier return to work.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair is an effective option for the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia. The TEP approach combines the advantages of minimal invasive surgery and those of tension-free mesh repair, reducing operating time, postoperative morbidity, and recurrence rate.

Inguinal hernia repair: results using an open preperitoneal approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgical approaches to the repair of inguinal hernias have shown the advantages of placing mesh in the preperitoneal space. Despite those advantages, laparoscopic hernia repairs have been associated with increased cost, longer operating times, and advanced laparoscopic skills. An open preperitoneal approach has the benefit of mesh in the preperitoneal position without the disadvantages of a laparoscopic procedure.

METHODS

We present our experience with the use of an open preperitoneal mesh repair (KugelMesh, Bard, Inc.). The study was conducted in a prospective fashion from January 1998 through October 2001. 1072 hernias were repaired in two community hospitals by three general surgeons. Patients with recurrent hernias were excluded if the initial repair was from a preperitoneal approach. Operative time, cost, post-operative pain, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Recurrences occurred in five patients (0.47%) during a mean follow-up time of 23 months (range: 2-47). The average operating time was 32.4 min (range: 16-62). Post-operative narcotic pain medication usage averaged 5.8 pills (range: 0-26) per repair. Average surgical charges were less for the open preperitoneal approach ($2253) than for laparoscopic repairs ($4826).

CONCLUSIONS

The open preperitoneal hernia repair using the Kugel mesh offers many advantages. It is inexpensive, has a low recurrence rate, and allows the surgeon to cover all potential defects with one piece of mesh. Postoperative recovery is short and postoperative pain is minimal.

Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

For the scientific evaluation of the endoscopic and open mesh techniques for the repair of inguinal hernia, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT) are necessary. The Lichtenstein repair is one of the most common open mesh techniques and therefore of special interest.

METHODS

After an extensive search of the literature and a quality assessment, a total of 34 RCT comparing endoscopic procedures both transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and total extraperitoneal (TEP)--with various open mesh repairs were deemed to be suitable for a formal meta-analysis of the relevant parameters. These studies included data for 7,223 patients. Trials that used the Lichtenstein repair for the control group (23 of 34 trials) were analyzed-separately.

RESULTS

Significant advantages for the endoscopic procedures compared with the Lichtenstein repair include a lower incidence of wound infection (Peto odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.26, 0.61), a reduction in hematoma formation (0.69 [0.54, 0.90]) and nerve injury (0.46 [0.35, 0.61]), an earlier return to normal activities or work (-1.35[-1.72, -0.97]), and fewer incidences of chronic pain syndrome (0.56[0.44, 0.70]). No difference was found in total morbidity or in the incidence of intestinal lesions, urinary bladder lesions, major vascular lesions, urinary retention and testicular problems. Significant advantages for the Lichtenstein repair include in a shorter operating time (5.45[1.18, 9.73]), a lower incidence of seroma formation (1.42[1.13, 1.79]), and fewer hernia recurrences (2.00[1.46, 2.74]). Similar results are seen when endoscopic procedures are compared with other open mesh repairs. However, in this comparison, total morbidity was lower with the endoscopic operations (0.73[0.61, 0.89]). The incidence of seroma formation, chronic pain syndromes, and hernia recurrence was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic repairs do have advantages interms of local complications and pain-associated parameters. For more detailed evaluation further well-structured trials with improved standardization of hernia type, operative technique, and surgeons' experience are necessary.

Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency

Economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly being designed to prospectively collect patient-specific resource use and preference-based health status (utility) data. This paper examines the ways in which preference-based health status (utility) data are used to generate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). A literature review was carried out which identified 23 published cost utility analyses suitable for inclusion. The methodology employed to calculate QALYs was not always consistent, as well as being poorly reported. The use of different methodologies in the calculation of QALYs may influence the magnitude and direction of results of evaluations. Analysts need to be consistent and fully transparent in the methodology chosen to calculate QALYs.

Inguinal Hernia Repair by Surgical Trainees at a Malaysian Teaching Hospital

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcome of inguinal hernia repaired by surgical trainees at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 103 patients who underwent surgery between November 2001 and October 2002.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 50 years and the male-to-female ratio was 20:1. Most hernias (60%) were right-sided inguinal hernias. Admissions consisted of 60% elective, 31% day-case and 9% emergency. General anaesthesia was administered in 66% of cases, spinal anaesthesia in 33% and local anaesthesia in 1%. Ten inguinal hernia repairs were performed by first-year trainees, 61 by third-year trainees and 19 by fourth-year trainees. First-year trainees did more darning (60%) and fewer mesh (40%) repairs. Third-year trainees still used darning (57%) but also performed more mesh repairs (43%). Fourth-year trainees performed 68% darning (mainly to teach the first-year trainees) and 32% mesh repairs. Senior surgeons assisted in 13 difficult cases where mesh repair was preferred (92%) to darning repairs (8%). Prophylactic antibiotic was more frequently used in patients undergoing mesh repair (p < 0.001). The mean operative time was the same for both types of repair. There were no significant differences in complications between the two types of repair. One hernia recurred after darning repair but none after mesh repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh repair of inguinal hernia is effective. Trainees easily acquire this skill and it becomes their preferred method of repair.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative methods of surgical repair of inguinal hernia

Objectives:To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic methods of inguinal hernia repair compared with open flat mesh and open non-mesh repair.

Methods:Data on the effectiveness of these alternatives came from three systematic reviews comparing: (i) laparoscopic methods with open flat mesh or non-mesh methods; (ii) open flat mesh with open non-mesh repair; and (iii) methods that used synthetic mesh to repair the hernia defect with those that did not. Data on costs were obtained from the authors of economic evaluations previously conducted alongside trials included in the reviews. A Markov model was used to model cost-effectiveness for a five-year period after the initial operation. The outcomes of the model were presented using a balance sheet approach and as cost per hernia recurrence avoided and cost per extra day at usual activities.

Results:Open flat mesh was the most cost-effective method of preventing recurrences. Laparoscopic repair provided a shorter period of convalescence and less long-term pain compared with open flat mesh but was more costly. The mean incremental cost per additional day back at usual activities compared with open flat mesh was €38 and €80 for totally extraperitoneal and transabdominal preperitoneal repair, respectively.

Conclusions:Laparoscopic repair is not cost-effective compared with open flat mesh repair in terms of cost per recurrence avoided. Decisions about the use of laparoscopic repair depend on whether the benefits (reduced pain and earlier return to usual activities) outweigh the extra costs and intraoperative risks. On the evidence presented here, these extra costs are unlikely to be offset by the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repair.

[A critical review of the pragmatic clinical trial]

Schwartz and Lellouch proposed in 1967 to differentiate between pragmatic and explanatory clinical trials. The pragmatic approach has been understood in different ways and has also been the object of some criticism. Yet different authors have asked to perform pragmatic clinical trials, especially in issues requiring a therapeutical decision. In order to clarify the present situation of the pragmatic trial, a bibliographic review has been performed. Between 1976 and 2002, 95 original articles on clinical trials conducted following a pragmatic design have been found. Only four followed strictly the approach developed by Schwartz et al. In a pragmatic clinical trial, it is usually not possible to blind the interventions and for this reason randomization is imperfect. This limitation casts doubts about the validity of the frequentistic methods in the intention-to-treat evaluation of the results of a pragmatic trial. This experimental approach demands an evaluation according to the decision-making theory. Following the Bayes theorem, the credibility and the previous probability of a hypothesis conditions its posterior probability. It has been agreed that Bayesian statistics is a suitable instrument for the evaluation of a pragmatic clinical trial, but the lack of adequate informatics' programs has limited seriously its application. Recently,some new programs (WinBUGS, TreeAge) have been developed and applied to the decision analysis in some primary care therapeutic questions. It seems possible to predict that, thanks to the new informatics'programs on Bayesian statistics, the pragmatic clinical trial will experience, in the short term, an important revival.

Current status of the debate on laparoscopic hernia repair

There is continued debate as to the role of laparoscopy in recurrent, bilateral inguinal and incisional hernias. Further clinical trials are needed in all of these areas. For patients with a primary inguinal hernia laparoscopic repair can no longer be recommended as the repair of choice unless it is undertaken in an expert centre in minimal access surgery.

Laparoscopic repair for groin hernias

So where do things stand in 2003? Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy appears to result in less postoperative pain (acute and chronic) and in a shorter convalescence and an earlier return to work, compared with the open repair. It can be performed safely and with a low recurrence rate. However, it takes longer to do, is more difficult to learn, and costs more, all reasons why it is not more commonly performed. Currently, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy accounts for 15% to 20% of hernia operations in America and around the world. Who can blame the surgeon in a community practice for opting for the open mesh repair, operating on familiar anatomy, and using familiar techniques? Nevertheless, with efforts to cut costs by eliminating disposable equipment and honing skills to decrease operating time, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy will probably continue to be a contender, especially for the younger patient who wants to return to work quickly and for patients with bilateral and recurrent hernias. It is arguable that surgeons should possess skill in both open and laparoscopic techniques and should know the indications for each--some hernias are best repaired laparoscopically. That said, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy will most likely be performed by those with a special interest and proficiency in the technique. At the least, the laparoscopic revolution and laparoscopic hernia repair have helped elevate the study of hernia anatomy and herniorrhaphy to a position it deserves and this has made us all better hernia surgeons. What was once the stepchild of general surgery now occupies a more prominent and respectable place. With the continuing efforts of dedicated, energetic investigators, we should continue to see advances in the safe and effective repair of this most common of surgical maladies.

Complications of open groin hernia repairs

As large numbers of patients undergo hernioplasty each year the surgical technique should be a simple one. The results obtained by general surgeons using various open, tension-free techniques, irrespective of the anesthetic used, are excellent and appear to approach those of specialists. This can not be said for laparoscopic hernioplasty, which has a well-known learning curve, is more expensive and is not without complications, some of which may be serious or life threatening. Although proper training in laparoscopic techniques is essential, the same applies to open repair with mesh. Surgical residents should be taught open-mesh repairs under local anesthesia before embarking on training in laparoscopic techniques if they show interest in pursuing this approach. Indeed, we may soon be faced with an increasing number of patients who are not fit for a general anesthetic. Not all hernias need be repaired by specialists and visiting centers with experience in the use of different prosthetic devices allows you to draw your own conclusions. Finally, when consulting a patient with an inguinal hernia, primary or recurrent, the surgeon should pose the question "which combination of anesthetic and hernia repair is the safest and best for my patient?" Local anesthesia with appropriate analgesia and sedation is the safest of all techniques and is suitable for most if not all open repairs. Using this approach, any type of open-mesh repair makes the ideal combination and all can be safely carried out on an ambulatory basis. Attention to surgical technique is paramount, and given the number of hernias repaired annually, it is pertinent to recall the words of Wakely, who said "A surgeon can do more for the community by operating on hernia cases, and seeing that his recurrence rate is lower, than he can by operating on cases of malignant disease."

Laparoscopic preperitoneal mesh repair or tension-free mesh plug technique? A prospective study of 471 patients with 543 inguinal hernias

OBJECTIVE

To compare two modem mesh-based "tension free" hernioplasties, laparoscopic repair and mesh plug technique.

DESIGN

Prospective, non-randomised study.

SETTING

Two major medical centres, Greece.

SUBJECTS

471 patients with 543 inguinal hernias.

INTERVENTION

Patients entering the study were treated in two major medical centres either by laparoscopic repair under general anaesthesia (n = 237) in hospital A, or by insertion of a mesh plug under monitored local, epidural, or spinal anaesthesia (n = 234) in hospital B. Patients with known bilateral inguinal hernias, femoral hernias, and those with both inguinal hernias and cholelithiasis were encouraged to undergo laparoscopic repair.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, hospital mortality, morbidity and length of stay, costs, time to return to work, and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

The median operative time for laparoscopic repair was significantly longer (57 compared with 33 minutes, p < 0.001). Laparoscopic repair was more costly (1,200 US dollars compared with 500), and technically more demanding than insertion of a mesh plug. The median postoperative hospital stay, consumption of narcotic analgesics, and return to full work and heavy activities were similar in the two groups, whereas light activities were started earlier after plug repair [5.4 (2.4) compared with 3.4 (1.5) hours, p < 0.0001]. There were 6 recurrences in the laparoscopic group and 1 in the plug group.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh plug insertion is faster, cheaper, technically easier, does not require general anaesthesia, and is suitable to be done by surgeons as part of their general practice without special instruments and by junior surgeons. Plug repair resulted in fewer short or long term complications and reduced the recurrence rate.

Changing the path of inguinal hernia surgery decreased the recurrence rate ten-fold. Report from a county hospital

OBJECTIVE

To audit the effect of changes in treatment of inguinal hernias on recurrence rate.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients operated on in 1990 and prospective analysis of consecutive patients operated on in 1996. Follow up with questionnaire followed by selective clinical examination.

SETTING

County hospital, Sweden.

SUBJECTS

144 patients with 147 inguinal hernias operated on in 1990 and 154 patients with 165 inguinal hernias operated 1996. on in

INTERVENTIONS

In 1993, we changed many aspects of the treatment of inguinal hernia. We introduced new techniques such as Shouldice, Lichtenstein, and laparoscopic hernia repair. Non-absorbable polypropylene sutures replaced the braided absorbable sutures previously used. Inguinal herniorrhaphy went from a "low status" operation to a high status operation and became a primary teaching operation for surgical residents.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recurrence rate at 5 year follow up.

RESULTS

The 5 year recurrence rate decreased from 28% in 1990 to 3% in 1996 (p < 0.001). The m edian operating time increased from 35 minutes in 1990 to 78 minutes in 1996 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Changing the strategy of inguinal hernia surgery by introducing uniform operating techniques and new materials dramatically improved the results and allowed us to achieve recurrence rates comparable to those seen in specialised hernia centres.

Endoscopic inguinal hernia repair in comparison with Shouldice and Lichtenstein repair. A systematic review of randomized trials

AIMS

This article provides an overview of randomized studies which compare endoscopic hernia repair techniques (TAPP/TEP) with the Shouldice and Lichtenstein repair.

METHODS

Systematic analysis of 33 published studies which meet the criteria of a randomized controlled trial with a high evidence level.

RESULTS

The majority of the studies document statistically significant advantages of the endoscopic repair techniques in relation to wound pain (15/22), need for analgesics (16/21), return-to-work time (16/22) and physical activity (18/25), although only one study showed significant advantages of the Lichtenstein method. Six of 28 studies showed a lower morbidity in comparison to open approaches, although 22 of 28 studies documented no significant difference. The first long-term studies with follow-up periods between 5 and 6 years also show advantages of the endoscopic techniques.

CONCLUSION

Even with cautious interpretation of the data, it is clear that endoscopic techniques are more comfortable for patients and that morbidity is no higher than for open procedures. Due to the short follow-up periods final evaluation regarding long-term complications and recurrence is not yet possible.

Local or general anesthesia for open hernia repair: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient outcome following repair of a primary groin hernia under local (LA) or general anesthesia (GA) in a randomized clinical trial.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

LA hernia repair is thought to be safer for patients, causes less postoperative pain, cost less, and is associated with a more rapid recovery when compared with the same operation performed under GA.

METHODS

All patients presenting to three surgeons during the study period with a primary groin hernia were considered eligible. Outcome parameters measured including tests of vigilance, divided attention, sustained attention, memory, cognitive function, pain, return to normal activity, and costs.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-nine patients were randomized to LA or GA hernia repair; 276 of these had an operation, with 138 participants in each group. At 6, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively there were no differences in vigilance or divided attention between the groups. Similarly, memory, sustained attention, and cognitive function were not impaired in either group. Although physical activity was significantly impaired at 24 hours, this and return to usual social activities were similar in both groups. While patients in the LA group had significantly less pain on moving, at 6 hours they were less likely to recommend the same operation to someone else. GA hernia repair cost 4% more than the same operation under LA.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no major differences in patient recovery after LA or GA hernia repair. Patients should be offered a choice of anesthesia, LA or GA, for repair of their groin hernia.