RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING PROLENE HERNIA SYSTEM AND LICHTENSTEIN METHOD FOR INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR

Postoperative Quality of Life after Open Transinguinal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair Using Memory Ring or Three-dimensional Devices

A transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) approach has become a common technique for inguinal hernia repair. Our goal was to compare the impact of the two mesh designs for this operation: a flat mesh with a memory ring device (MRD) or a three-dimensional device (3DD) containing both onlay and preperitoneal mesh components. The prospective International Hernia Mesh Registry (2007 to 2012) was queried for MRD and 3DD inguinal hernia repairs. Outcomes and patient quality of life (QOL), using the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS), were examined at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. Standard statistical methods were used, and multivariate logistic regression was performed using a forward stepwise selection method. TIPP was performed in 956 patients. Their average age 57.4 ± 15.3 years, 94.0 per cent were male, and mean body mass index was 25.7 ± 3.2 kg/m2. MRD was used in 131 and 3DD in 825. Follow-up was 97, 82, 87, and 80 per cent at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Complications were not significantly different ( P > 0.05). Recurrence was 0.8 per cent for MRD and 2.1 per cent for 3DD ( P = 0.45). Comparing patient outcomes of MRD with 3DD at 1 month, 18.9 versus 11.5 per cent had symptoms of mesh sensation ( P = 0.02); 28.7 versus 14.8 per cent had movement limitations ( P < 0.01). MRD use was a significant independent predictor of movement limitation (odds ratio, 2.3; confidence interval, 1.4 to 3.7). No significant differences in CCS scores were seen at 6, 12, and 24 months. TIPP repair is safe and has a low recurrence rate. Early postoperative QOL is significantly improved with a 3DD mesh compared with MRD.

Comparison of minimally invasive preperitoneal (MIP) single-layer mesh repair and total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair for inguinal hernia in terms of postoperative chronic pain: a prospective randomized trial

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare minimally invasive preperitoneal (MIP) single layer mesh repair with total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair in terms of complications, recurrence, and chronic pain.

Material and Methods

A total of 240 patients who underwent elective, primary, unilateral inguinal hernia operation between April 2011 and September 2012 were divided into two randomized groups. The first group underwent MIP repair and the second group underwent TEP repair. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Sheffield Scale (SS) were used to evaluate chronic pain.

Results

In all, 225 (95%) of the patients completed follow-up and were included in analyses. A significant difference was not detected between groups in terms of demographics, operative time, or intraoperative, early, or late complications. Length of time before return to work was significantly shorter in the TEP group (p <0.001). Recurrence was seen in 1 (0.88%) patient in the MIP group and 1 (0.89%) patient in the TEP group (p= 0.993). Evaluation of chronic pain revealed no significant difference between groups in VAS and SS values at postoperative 6th, 12th, and 24th months.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it was observed that MIP repair for inguinal hernia has all of the advantages of preperitoneal repair and eliminates disadvantages of TEP repair. MIP technique is as safe as TEP repair and has similar qualities in terms of chronic pain, even though it is an open intervention.

Prolene hernia system versus Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lichtenstein repair is standard practice for inguinal herniorrhaphy, but there is increasing public concern in the use of mesh and postoperative chronic pain. New mesh technology, such as the prolene hernia system, has a preperitoneal component to reinforce the myopectineal orifice aim to reduce the risk of recurrence and chronic pain. This meta-analysis compares outcomes using prolene hernia system versus lichenstein repair for inguinal hernias.

METHODS

Randomized-controlled trials comparing prolene hernia system and Lichtenstein repair were identified using Embase, Medline, and published conference abstracts. Primary outcomes were recurrence and chronic pain. Secondary outcomes were mean operating time, composite complications, surgical reintervention, and time to normal activities. Odds ration and standardized mean differences were calculated.

RESULTS

1377 hernia repairs were identified from a total of 7 trials. Mean follow-up was 12-91 months. There was no difference between the techniques for recurrence [pooled analysis odds ratio: 0.86 (95% CI 0.32-2.28); p = 0.76] and chronic pain [pooled analysis odds ratio: 1.00 (95% CIs 0.65-1.55); p = 1]. Prolene hernia system demonstrated a shorter time to return to normal activities [pooled weighted mean difference - 0.54 (95% CI - 1.07 to - 0.01); p = 0.04]. Other outcomes were similar in mean operating time, composite complications, and surgical reintervention.

CONCLUSION

Both prolene hernia system and Lichenstein repair appear comparable acceptable techniques for inguinal herniorrhaphy. Further longer-term studies of new mesh technologies will improve information available to surgeons and their patients.

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.

Rates of and methods used at reoperation for recurrence after primary inguinal hernia repair with Prolene Hernia System and Lichtenstein

Introduction

Since the introduction of tension-free mesh repair of inguinal hernia ad modum Lichtenstein (L), recurrence rates have been reduced to 1–2%. The bi-layer mesh Prolene Hernia System (PHS) is an alternative mesh with a theoretical potential to further reduce recurrence rates. However, a reoperation due to recurrence after PHS might be technically difficult since both the anterior and posterior space has been utilized.

Methods

Data on all males 18–75 years undergoing primary inguinal hernia repair (IHR) with PHS or L between January 1999 and October 2010 was collected from the Swedish Hernia Register (SHR). Moreover, data was collected for all operations due to recurrence after primary IHR with PHS or L between January 1st 1999 and December 31st 2014.

Results

A total of 1229 primary IHR with PHS and 78,230 with L was identified. Rates of reoperation for recurrence after PHS was significantly lower compared to L (1.5 vs. 2.7 %), [OR 0.38 (0.20–0.74)]. A medial recurrence was most common in both groups. At reoperation, an open anterior mesh repair was used in 74 % after PHS and a posterior mesh repair was performed in 58 % after L. Re-operating time was shorter, although not statistically significant in the PHS group (47 vs. 58 min, p = 0.29). Complication rates after surgery due to recurrence did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

The findings from this dataset suggest that recurrence rates after primary IHR with PHS might be lower and that reoperation due to recurrence after PHS is not more complicated than after L.

UltraPro Hernia System, Prolene Hernia System and Lichtenstein for primary inguinal hernia repair: 3-year outcomes of a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Chronic pain and discomfort are common after inguinal hernia repair (IHR). In this study, results from a 3-year follow-up from a randomized controlled study comparing three different mesh repairs for postoperative pain, discomfort, Quality of Life (QoL) and patient satisfaction are reported.

METHODS

Between November 1, 2006 and January 31, 2009, 309 men, who underwent day surgery for primary unilateral inguinal hernia under local anesthesia, were randomized to three different mesh repairs; UltraPro Hernia System (U), Prolene Hernia System (P) and Lichtenstein procedure (L).

RESULTS

Preoperatively, there were no differences between groups regarding demographics, symptoms, inguinal pain or QoL (SF-36 and a hernia-specific questionnaire). Operating time, postoperative pain, complications and time to full recovery were similar. At 36 months, 21 patients indicated pain [L, n = 6, P, n = 6 and U, n = 9; VAS (median (IQR)): L 0.4 (0.2-1.7), P 0.2 (0.1-2.3) and U 1.6 (0.7-4.6), p = ns]. Physical QoL was reduced in all groups before surgery and was similarly increased to normal levels after 3 months without further changes throughout the study. Although 92 % of participants were satisfied, sixteen percent reported any discomfort from the groin (ns between groups). Five recurrences were reported (L, n = 2, P, n = 1 and U, n = 2, p = ns).

CONCLUSIONS

After 3 years of follow-up, all three procedures provided equally good results regarding, pain, discomfort and QoL and could therefore be recommended for primary IHR in LA.

Comparison of Coskun and Lichteinstein hernia repair methods for groin hernia

Purpose

Coskun hernia repair technique has been reported to be an effective new fascia transversalis repair with its short-term follow-up results. Our aim is to determine the results of Coskun hernia repair technique and to compare it with Lichtenstein technique.

Methods

At this comparative retrospective study a total of 493 patients, who had groin hernia repair procedure using Coskun or Lichtenstein technique, between January 1999 and March 2010 were enrolled into the study. Patients were reached by telephone and invited to get a physical examination.

Results

Out of 493 groin hernia repairs, 436 (88.5%) were carried out by residents and 57 (11.5%) by attending surgeons. Lichtenstein technique was the choice in 241 patients and 252 patients underwent Coskun hernia repair technique. Groin hernia recurrence was detected in 8 patients (3.1%) in Coskun hernia repair group and 7 patients (2.9%) in Lichtenstein group. Comparison of early complication rates in Coskun group (3.9%) and Lichtenstein group (4.5%) showed no significant difference. Late complication rates were significantly higher in Lichtenstein group (1.2% vs. 4.9%). The operation time was shorter in Coskun group (44 minutes) than in Lichtenstein group (60 minutes). Subgroup of patients, whose hernia repair operations were carried out by attending surgeons, had a recurrence rate of 0% and 3.8%, in Coskun group and Lichtenstein group, respectively.

Conclusion

This study showed that Coskun hernia repair technique has a similar efficacy with Lichtenstein repair, on follow-up.

Comparative Study of Prolene Hernia System and Lichtenstein Method for Open Inguinal Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

Prolene Hernia System (PHS) is a bi-layered polypropylene mesh with a connector that combines the anterior and posterior inguinal hernia repair, but still not very popular in this part of the country. Hence a prospective & randomized comparative study was undertaken to compare PHS with the already popular Lichtenstein Hernia Repair (LHR) and determine the post-operative outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Total 67 inguinal hernia repairs were randomly assigned to either PHS or LHR method, and data was collected regarding various outcome measures like duration of surgery, post-operative pain, requirement of analgesia, return to normal activity, and early and late complications.

RESULTS

Mean duration of surgery was significantly higher for PHS group than LHR group (65.4 min vs 51.26 min, p-value <0.0001). Significant difference was noted between the PHS and LHR group in terms of moderate to severe post-operative pain (15.15% vs 41.18%,p-value 0.018), time of requirement of analgesia (3.7 vs 4.6 days, p-value 0.024), and time to return to normal activity (2.7 vs 3.4 days, p-value 0.023), all in favour of the former technique. No intra-operative complication was noted in either of the groups. 5 patients had early complications in PHS group and 6 in LHR group, but this was statistically not significant. The average time of follow-up for the study was 7.8 month, ranging from 1 to 18 months. Chronic inguinal pain was noted in 1 and 2 patients respectively in PHS and LHR group, again statistically not significant. No recurrence was noted in both the groups till the time of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

PHS is a safe and better alternative to the time honored Lichtenstein hernia repair with the added advantage of strengthening whole of myopectineal orifice, and virtually eliminating any risk of recurrence.

Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients

PURPOSE

In 2009, the European Hernia Society published the EHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia in Adult Patients. The Guidelines contain recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia from diagnosis till aftercare. The guidelines expired January 1, 2012. To keep them updated, a revision of the guidelines was planned including new level 1 evidence.

METHODS

The original Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ranking was used. All relevant level 1A and level 1B literature from May 2008 to June 2010 was searched (Medline and Cochrane) by the Working Group members. All chapters were attributed to the two responsible authors in the initial guidelines document. One new chapter on fixation techniques was added. The quality was assessed by the Working Group members during a 2-day meeting and the data were analysed, especially with respect to any change in the level and/or text of any of the conclusions or recommendations of the initial guidelines. In the end, all relevant references published until January 1, 2013 were included. The final text was approved by all Working Group members.

RESULTS

For the following topics, the conclusions and/or recommendations have been changed: indications for treatment, treatment of inguinal hernia, day surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis, training, postoperative pain control and chronic pain. The addendum contains all current level 1 conclusions, Grade A recommendations and new Grade B recommendations based on new level 1 evidence (with the changes in bold).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that the Working Group responsible for it tried to represent most kinds of surgeons treating inguinal hernias, such general guidelines inevitably must be fitted to the daily practice of every individual surgeon treating his/her patients. There is no doubt that the future of guideline implementation will strongly depend on the development of easy to use decision support algorithms tailored to the individual patient and on evaluating the effect of guideline implementation on surgical outcome. At the 35th International Congress of the EHS in Gdansk, Poland (May 12-15, 2013), it was decided that the EHS, IEHS and EAES will collaborate from now on with the final goal to publish new joint guidelines, most likely in 2015.

Modified Kugel herniorrhaphy using standardized dissection technique of the preperitoneal space: long-term operative outcome in consecutive 340 patients with inguinal hernia

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome, with a special reference to recurrence and postoperative chronic pain, of the modified Kugel herniorrhaphy (MKH) using standardized dissection of the preperitoneal space.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Operative results were examined based on medical records and questionnaire surveys in 340 consecutive cases of MKH performed at a single institution. The operation was performed with an original 3-stage dissection of the preperitoneal space only via the internal inguinal ring.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 50.5 ± 24.3 months. The mean operating time was 42.2 ± 13.1 min, and by Nyhus classification, significant difference was observed between types IIIA and IIIB (39.5 ± 10.8 vs. 45.6 ± 15.6 min, P = 0.0279). Eight surgeons performed 10 or more operations, and no significant difference was found in their operating time. Thirty-one patients used additional analgesics postoperatively (9.1 %) and the length of postoperative stay was 1.2 ± 0.7 days. Seven patients (2.1 %) developed complications related to the hernia operation, but none of them required re-operation. The period required to return to normal daily activities was 3 ± 3.2 days. Questionnaire forms were returned from 77.7 % of all the patients, in which 12 patients reported chronic pain (4.7 %). Visual analog scale for patients with chronic pain scored 3.8 ± 2.4, with no patient indicating restrictions on daily life. Recurrence was observed in only one case (0.3 %).

CONCLUSION

MKH using standardized dissection of the preperitoneal space is a highly reproducible procedure with acceptable rate of postoperative chronic pain and recurrence.

Lichtenstein, prolene hernia system, and UltraPro Hernia System for primary inguinal hernia repair: one-year outcome of a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The optimal technique for open inguinal hernia repair is yet to be determined.

METHODS

Three hundred and nine male patients [median of 60 years (range, 31-75)] undergoing primary open inguinal hernia repair in local anesthesia and day-care surgery were randomly allocated to operation with the Lichtenstein technique (L), Prolene Hernia System (PHS), or UltraPro Hernia System (UHS).

RESULTS

[Median (IQR)] There were no differences in operating time [47 (40-58) vs. 50 (40-57) and 50 (42-56) min in groups L, PHS, and UHS, respectively], intra- or postoperative complications, time until return to normal workload (8 (4-14) vs. 9 (4-14), and 8 (4-14) days) or occurrence of chronic pain at 12 months (15 vs. 12, and 13 patients). Self-reported physical quality of life (SF-36) was reduced compared to matched controls preoperatively and increased similarly to levels not different from controls in all groups at 12 months postoperatively. There was one recurrence in each group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The Lichtenstein technique, PHS, and UHS seem all acceptable approaches for open inguinal hernia repair in local anesthesia and day-care surgery regarding perioperative course, rehabilitation, complications, recurrence rates, development of chronic groin pain, and improvement in quality of life after 12 months. However, due to reduced costs and lack of need for the exploration of the preperitoneal space, the Lichtenstein technique should be recommended as first choice.

Using the Prolene Hernia System (PHS) for inguinal hernia repair

OBJECTIVE

To assess immediate postoperative and late complications in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing surgical correction by Gilbert technique, using the Prolene Hernia System (HPS).

METHODS

We surveyed all patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair with PHS mesh at The Sao Lucas Hospital--PUCRS, from January 2001 to october 2006. Information was retrospectively collected through telephone calls and chart review. The protocol for data collection included epidemiological aspects, as well as immediate and late complications.

RESULTS

ninety-six patients were enrolled. We identified six (6.25%) complications in different patients, none of which resulting in death. Two patients (2.08%) had seroma; hematoma was identified in one patient (1.04%); one patient (1.04%) had wound infection. Two patients (2.08%) had scrotal edema. After a mean follow up of 49.25 months (range 16 to 86.12) two patients (2.08%) had chronic pain and one patient (1.04%) had hernia recurrence twenty-six months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The repair of inguinal hernia with PHS is a safe, effective and reproducible method, with low complication and recurrence rates or long term symptoms.

European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients

The European Hernia Society (EHS) is proud to present the EHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia in Adult Patients. The Guidelines contain recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia from diagnosis till aftercare. They have been developed by a Working Group consisting of expert surgeons with representatives of 14 country members of the EHS. They are evidence-based and, when necessary, a consensus was reached among all members. The Guidelines have been reviewed by a Steering Committee. Before finalisation, feedback from different national hernia societies was obtained. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used by the Cochrane Association to validate the Guidelines. The Guidelines can be used to adjust local protocols, for training purposes and quality control. They will be revised in 2012 in order to keep them updated. In between revisions, it is the intention of the Working Group to provide every year, during the EHS annual congress, a short update of new high-level evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and meta-analyses). Developing guidelines leads to questions that remain to be answered by specific research. Therefore, we provide recommendations for further research that can be performed to raise the level of evidence concerning certain aspects of inguinal hernia treatment. In addition, a short summary, specifically for the general practitioner, is given. In order to increase the practical use of the Guidelines by consultants and residents, more details on the most important surgical techniques, local infiltration anaesthesia and a patient information sheet is provided. The most important challenge now will be the implementation of the Guidelines in daily surgical practice. This remains an important task for the EHS. The establishment of an EHS school for teaching inguinal hernia repair surgical techniques, including tips and tricks from experts to overcome the learning curve (especially in endoscopic repair), will be the next step. Working together on this project was a great learning experience, and it was worthwhile and fun. Cultural differences between members were easily overcome by educating each other, respecting different views and always coming back to the principles of evidence-based medicine. The members of the Working Group would like to thank the EHS board for their support and especially Ethicon for sponsoring the many meetings that were needed to finalise such an ambitious project.

Open repair of inguinal hernia: an evidence-based review

This article provides an evidence-based review of open hernia repair. Technical considerations in general, including perioperative management of the patient, and the most currently used open repairs are addressed. Outcomes after repair are reviewed using the latest available literature. Current recommendations from this review include the routine use of mesh in primary repair of inguinal hernia and the need to counsel patients preoperatively about the risk of chronic postoperative groin pain.

Transinguinal preperitoneal repair with the Polysoft patch: prospective evaluation of recurrence and chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

The Polysoft patch was conceived to facilitate performance of the transinguinal preperitoneal patch method and combine the advantages of patch placement in the preperitoneal space and the open inguinal approach. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the rate of recurrence and chronic pain at midterm follow-up.

METHODS

In a cohort of 200 hernia repairs involved in a prospective evaluation, midterm results of 171 cases operated on from 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2005 were assessed. The anesthesia was spinal in 136 (79.5%) cases, local in 26 (15.2%), and general in nine (5.3%). A questionnaire was sent to patients on 30 November 2006 asking about recurrence, chronic groin pain, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 21.9 months (11.6-29.4), 167 (97.7%) patients were evaluated, two were dead, and two were lost to follow-up. There were two (1.2%) recurrences that were reoperated on; both consisted of an indirect sac that protruded between the branches of the split patch. Eleven (6.6%) patients alleged the feeling of a foreign body, and 12 (7.2%) reported pain that occurred occasionally or upon effort but did not prevent activity. In one case, the pain present before operation was unchanged, and in three cases, the pain could clearly be attributed to an origin other than the hernia repair. No case of pain that impaired activity was observed. With regard to results, 98.2% of patients were satisfied and 97.6% declared that they would adopt the same method in case they had to be operated on for another hernia.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the technique provides a low rate of recurrence and a low percentage of chronic pain that did not impair activity.

Study of Efficacy of Bilayer Mesh Device versus Conventional Polypropelene Hernia System in Inguinal Hernia Repair: Early Results

BACKGROUND

The Prolene hernia system (PHS) is a three-dimensional mesh device that combines three approaches to hernia repair, but its high cost precludes its widespread use in developing countries. We describe our experience with an indigenous bilayer mesh device that works on a similar principle, and compare its efficacy with conventional PHS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 84 patients with unilateral/bilateral primary uncomplicated inguinal hernia were recruited for the study over a 1-year period and randomized into two groups. Group 1, which consisted of 40 patients, received the indigenous device, and group 2, 44 patients, received conventional PHS. Mean operative time and the patients' visual assessment scores (VAS) for pain were primary outcome measures. Patient were reviewed in out patients department at intervals of 3 months, and the incidence of complications and recurrence was noted. This was the secondary outcome measure.

RESULTS

The two group were comparable in terms of age, type of hernia, and mean duration of follow-up. The mean operative time was 32.1 min (+/- 5.5) and 33.25 (+/- 5.3) in groups 1 and 2, respectively, and the mean VAS score was 2.25 and 2.27 in the respective groups. There was no statistically significant difference. Similarly, the was no significant difference in incidence of complications noted between the two groups (3/40 versus 4/44, respectively). There were no recurrences noted during the period of observation.

CONCLUSIONS

The indigenous bilayer device described in this study combines the advantages of two well-publicized techniques of hernia repair: inlay repair and onlay repair. It offers the benefits of conventional PHS repair but is far less expensive and is quite suitable for routine use in centers like ours in a developing nation, where financial resources are a constraint.