Early recovery after endoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) hernia repair in athletes with inguinal disruption: A prospective cohort study

Robotic Abdominal Wall Repair with Endoscopic Adductor Lengthening: A Minimally Invasive Approach for Core Muscle Injuries

Groin pain is a common complaint in sports medicine practices but can be a challenge to accurately diagnose given the expanse of differentials. In the athlete, groin pain may be caused by a core muscle injury, also known as sports hernia or athletic pubalgia. These injuries most frequently occur in young males who participate in explosive and rotationally demanding activities such as soccer, football, and ice hockey, which generate large forces across the trunk and hip joint. These injuries are becoming more frequently diagnosed, in part, due to the utilization of diagnostic modalities, such as dynamic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and sensitive physical examination tests, such as the cross-body sit-up and squeeze test. When conservative management fails, surgical intervention is a good option for the athletes who desire to return to play. Surgical options include both open and laparoscopic techniques to repair abdominopelvic defects with or without attention to adductor pathology. The purpose of this article is to present a technique for minimally invasive robotic abdominal wall repair with endoscopic adductor lengthening for core muscle injuries.

A proposed algorithm for the treatment of core muscle injuries

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

A Systematic Review Shows High Variation in Terminology, Surgical Techniques, Preoperative Diagnostic Measures, and Geographic Differences in the Treatment of Athletic Pubalgia/Sports Hernia/Core Muscle Injury/Inguinal Disruption

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of reported terminologies, surgical techniques, preoperative diagnostic measures, and geographic differences in the treatment of core muscle injury (CMI)/athletic pubalgia/inguinal disruption.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify clinical studies or articles that described a surgical technique to treat CMI refractory to nonoperative treatment. The search phrase used was "core muscle injury" OR "sports hernia" OR "athletic pubalgia" OR "inguinal disruption." The diagnostic terminology, country of publication, preoperative diagnostic measures, surgical technique, and subspecialty of the operating surgeons described in each article were extracted and reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 3 surgical technique articles and 28 clinical articles (2 Level I evidence, 1 Level II, 4 Level III, and 21 Level IV). A total of 1,571 patients were included. The most common terminology used to describe the diagnosis was "athletic pubalgia," followed by "sports hernia." Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis were the most common imaging modalities used in the preoperative evaluation of CMI/athletic pubalgia/inguinal disruption. Tenderness-to-palpation testing was the most common technique performed during physical examination, although the specific locations assessed with this technique varied substantially. The operating surgeons were general surgeons (16 articles), a combination of orthopaedic and general surgeons (7 articles), or orthopaedic surgeons (5 articles). The most common procedures performed were open or laparoscopic mesh repair, adductor tenotomy, primary tissue (hernia) repair, and rectus abdominis repair. The procedures performed differed on the basis of surgeon subspecialty, geographic location, and year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of diagnostic methods and surgical procedures have been used in the treatment of a CMI/athletic pubalgia/sports hernia/inguinal disruption. These procedures are performed by orthopaedic and/or general surgeons, with the procedures performed differing on the basis of surgeon subspecialty and geographic location.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, systematic review of Level I to V studies.

Totally extra-peritoneal repair versus trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair for the laparoscopic surgical management of sportsman's hernia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open and laparoscopic modalities are employed for treatment of sportsman's hernia with totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) and trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic approaches both currently being utilised. At present, neither subtype has demonstrated a beneficial superiority for sportsman's hernia repair, as concluded in the most recent systematic review comparing the outcomes of each technique. The aim of this review was to evaluate current evidence to ascertain whether there was a difference in laparoscopic techniques following sportsman's hernia repair.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for RCTs and observational studies, respectively.The assessed outcomes included median time to return to sporting activity, complications and the degree of postoperative pain reduction within three months. Random effects model was used to calculate pooled proportion data where feasible. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

28 studies were identified including 2 RCTs and 26 observational studies. No significant differences were observed between techniques in the primary or secondary outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in all outcomes. This was more pronounced for return to sporting activity meaning that meta-analysis was not feasible in this domain. Median time to return to sporting activity was 28 days for both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no observed difference in the primary and secondary outcomes in either technique. An RCT comparing TEP and TAPP repair is needed to provide definitive data on this matter.