Needlescopic Surgery Versus Single-port Laparoscopy for Inguinal Hernia

Experimental evaluation of the fineness of needle forceps: advantages other than minimal access

PURPOSE

Needle forceps are used to limit damage to the abdominal wall in endoscopic surgery; however, few experimental studies have evaluated the fineness and performance of needle forceps. We conducted this study to identify the advantages of needle forceps over conventional 5 mm forceps, focusing on fine grasping and needle control.

METHODS

Twenty physicians executed tasks using 5 mm forceps and 2.1 mm small diameter forceps in a laparoscopic experimental setting. First, we timed the execution and recorded the number of drops in a task of grasping and moving grains of rice and red beans. Next, we measured the execution time, looseness of the knot, and the deviation from the stitching point in a suture and ligation task using suture needles with a diameter of 17 or 26 mm.

RESULTS

The needle forceps required a significantly shorter execution time to move the rice grains (37.7 s vs. 45.8 s; p = 0.01) and a significantly higher completion rate (90% vs 20%; p < 0.01). The deviation of the stitching point using the 17 mm needle with needle forceps was significantly smaller than with the 5 mm forceps (0.5 mm vs. 1.0 mm; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Needle forceps are better for procedures requiring fine grasping and enable more accurate small diameter needle control than 5 mm forceps.

Simultaneous transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A report of 17 cases

INTRODUCTION

Inguinal hernia repair and cholecystectomy are frequently performed in the field of gastrointestinal surgery. However, reports describing surgical procedures that involve simultaneous transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), as well as the safety and usefulness of this combination, are limited. Herein, we report a surgical procedure involving simultaneous TAPP and LC (TAPP + LC) and present the outcomes of patients who have undergone this combined surgical procedure, with a particular focus on its safety and usefulness.

METHODS

We simultaneously performed TAPP + LC in 17 patients (mean age, 66.5 ± 8.1 years) with concomitant inguinal hernia and gallbladder stones. We assessed surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 157 ± 39 min, and mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.2 ± 0.6 days. The median cost was $7673 for TAPP + LC. The mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 1.1 ± 0.6 day for TAPP alone and 3.4 ± 1.4 days for LC alone. The median costs of TAPP alone and LC alone were $4932 and $5453, respectively. Regarding intraoperative complications, the inferior epigastric vessels were damaged in two patients, and seroma was detected as a postoperative complication in one; these complications were spontaneously resolved. No mesh- or infection-related complications were noted.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous TAPP + LC is safe and can be regarded as a standard surgical procedure for patients with concomitant inguinal hernia and gallbladder stones. The TAPP + LC combination appears to help prevent the need for two hospitalizations and, thereby, reduces hospital stay and economic burden.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in inguinal hernia repair

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (IHR) offers the potential for excellent cosmetic outcomes and maximization of the inherent advantages of minimally invasive surgery. LESS IHR is associated with a steep learning curve, which is attributable to both the IHR technique itself and the single-site technique. The technical obstacles in the single-site technique may be mitigated by employing certain maneuvers and strategies that minimize clashing between instruments and improve freedom of movement. The current literature consistently points out the inherent challenges in LESS IHR, with its longer operative time compared to that of conventional laparoscopic IHR. LESS IHR performed by capable operators has comparable complication rates, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of recurrence as conventional laparoscopic IHR. LESS IHR is both feasible and safe. Given its excellent cosmetic outcome, it is likely to be sought by younger patients who are concerned with scar formation. The use of robotics may bypass the technical challenges in LESS, but cost considerations in their usage will likely persist.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty

PURPOSE

Additional studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty (SILH) and conventional laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty (CLH) have been published, and this study updates the meta-analysis of this subject.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases to locate original articles that compared SILH and CLH for inguinal hernia that were published until October 2015. Operative time, conversions, complications, length of hospital stay, recurrence, postoperative pain at 24 hours, and postoperative pain at 7 days were compared using Stata software, version 12.0.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were selected for this analysis, which included a total of 1672 patients (907 in SILH and 765 in CLH). SILH showed a longer operative time; however, conversions, complications, length of hospital stay, recurrence, postoperative pain at 24 hours, and postoperative pain at 7 days were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis has shown that inguinal hernia repair using SILH is as safe as CLH. However, based on our evidence, we currently believe that SILH is not an efficacious surgical alternative to CLH for inguinal hernias due to the fact that it does not provide significant benefit in postoperative pain and cosmetic outcomes. However, large-scale, well-designed, and multicenter studies will be needed to further confirm the results of this study.