Transfascial suture versus tack fixation of mesh in totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: A prospective comparative study

Laparoscopic bilateral inguinal hernia repair: Should it be the preferred technique?

Inguinal hernias are amongst the most common conditions requiring general surgical intervention. For decades, the preferred approach was the open repair. As laparoscopy became more popular and available and more surgeons became familiarized with this modality, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair became an alternative. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic inguinal repair, with a focus on bilateral inguinal hernias. Initial reports have shown promising clinical outcomes compared to those of conventional repair of bilateral hernias. However, there are only a few studies concerning laparoscopic repair of bilateral hernias. It is yet to be proven that laparoscopy is the “gold standard” in the treatment of bilateral inguinal hernias. So far, the choice of an inguinal hernia repair technique has been up to each surgeon, depending on their expertise and available resources after taking into consideration each patient’s needs.

A prospective randomised control trial to compare the perioperative outcomes and ergonomic challenges between triangular versus midline port placement in total extra-peritoneal repair of uncomplicated unilateral inguinal hernia

BACKGROUND

Routine TEP technique requires three skin incisions for placement of three trocars in the midline. Otherwise, this can be done by three-port triangular technique or two-hand technique. This study reports a randomised trial of perioperative outcomes and ergonomics characteristics of this procedure using two different techniques of port insertion.

METHODS

N = 28 patients were randomised into two groups for triangular three-port (TTEP) versus midline three-port TEP (MTEP) hernioplasty after informed written consent in Department of Surgery, King George's Medical University UP between September 2016 and September 2017 after institutional ethical approval. Patient-related outcomes in terms of quality of life (QOL) and ergonomic evaluation of the technique were compared in double-blinded fashion.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain score at 24 h post surgery (5.1 ± 0.6; 95% CI 4.9-5.3 vs. 4.8 ± 0.4; 95% CI 4.6-4.9) differed, while hospital stay, time to return to routine work, tolerance to oral feeds and intraoperative complications occurrence (OR 2.1; 95% CI 0.2-24.3) were comparable in both groups. Time to return to office work (5.5 ± 0.5; 95% CI 5.4-5.7 vs. 4.0 ± 0.8; 95% CI 3.7-4.3) and immediate postoperative sensation of mesh and pain score were significantly higher in MTEP compared to TTEP. Ergonomic parameters including visualization of landmark score, spreading of mesh score and total surgeon satisfaction score (TTEP 8.4 ± 0.7; 95% CI 8.1-8.6 vs. MTEP 7.0 ± 0.8; 95% CI 6.7-7.3), mental effort quotient (SMEQ score: TTEP 50.6 ± 12.7; 95% CI 45.9-55.3 vs. MTEP 70.8 ± 12.6: 95% CI 66.1-75.4) and physical effort quotient (LEDQ scores in wrist, hand, arm and shoulders) were also superior in triangular technique of port placement.

CONCLUSION

Triangular three-port TEP hernioplasty is ergonomically feasible and enables a surgeon to perform surgery safely using basic principles of laparoscopy.