ONE potential adverse outcome from surgery is chronic pain. Analysis of predictive and pathologic factors is important to develop rational strategies to prevent this problem. Additionally, the natural history of patients with and without persistent pain after surgery provides an opportunity to improve the understanding of the physiology and psychology of chronic pain. Ideally, studies of chronic postoperative pain should include (1) sufficient preoperative data (assessment of pain, physiologic and psychologic risk factors for chronic pain); (2) detailed descriptions of the operative approaches used (location and length of incisions, handling of nerves and muscles); (3) the intensity and character of acute postoperative pain and its management; and (4) follow-up at intervals to 1 yr or more. In addition, there would be information about postoperative interventions that may influence pain, such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy. At long-term follow-up visits, patient function, physical signs, and symptoms would be evaluated using a standardized algorithm, including quantitative and descriptive pain assessments. We found no studies that contain all of these data. For this review, we specifically sought population data that reflect the incidence of chronic postoperative pain or predictors (medical, physiologic, and psychologic) of chronic pain. We selected five groups of surgeries (limb amputations, breast surgery, gallbladder surgery, lung surgery, and inguinal hernia surgery). These surgeries were selected because the incidence of pain is known to be high, thus improving the probability of detecting predictive factors. They also represent a range of major surgical procedures.

/pdf/chronic-pain-as-an-outcome-of-surgery-a-review-of-predictive-2uelx8pjq5.pdf

Chronic pain as an outcome of surgery. A review of predictive factors.

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.

/pdf/european-hernia-society-guidelines-on-the-treatment-of-3gpmvq0mxo.pdf

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

BACKGROUND Repair of inguinal hernias in men is a common surgical procedure, but the most effective surgical technique is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned men with inguinal hernias at 14 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers to either open mesh or laparoscopic mesh repair. The primary outcome was recurrence of hernias at two years. Secondary outcomes included complications and patient-centered outcomes. RESULTS Of the 2164 patients who were randomly assigned to one of the two procedures, 1983 underwent an operation; two-year follow-up was completed in 1696 (85.5 percent). Recurrences were more common in the laparoscopic group (87 of 862 patients [10.1 percent]) than in the open group (41 of 834 patients [4.9 percent]; odds ratio, 2.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.2). The rate of complications was higher in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-surgery group (39.0 percent vs. 33.4 percent; adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.6). The laparoscopic-surgery group had less pain initially than the open-surgery group on the day of surgery (difference in mean score on a visual-analogue scale, 10.2 mm; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.8 to 15.6) and at two weeks (6.1 mm; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 10.5) and returned to normal activities one day earlier (adjusted hazard ratio for a shorter time to return to normal activities, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.3). In prespecified analyses, there was a significant interaction between the surgical approach (open or laparoscopic) and the type of hernia (primary or recurrent) (P=0.012). Recurrence was significantly more common after laparoscopic repair than after open repair of primary hernias (10.1 percent vs. 4.0 percent), but rates of recurrence after repair of recurrent hernias were similar in the two groups (10.0 percent and 14.1 percent, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The open technique is superior to the laparoscopic technique for mesh repair of primary hernias.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa040093

Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(03)14746-0.pdf

Hernias: inguinal and incisional

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequently performed operation in general surgery. The standard method for inguinal hernia repair had changed little over a hundred years until the introduction of synthetic mesh. This mesh can be placed by either using an open approach or by using a minimal access laparoscopic technique. Although many studies have explored the relative merits and potential risks of laparoscopic surgery for the repair of inguinal hernia, most individual trials have been too small to show clear benefits of one type of surgical repair over another. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare minimal access laparoscopic mesh techniques with open techniques. Comparisons of open mesh techniques versus open non-mesh techniques have been considered in a separate Cochrane review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Registry for relevant randomised controlled trials. The reference list of identified trials, journal supplements, relevant book chapters and conference proceedings were searched for further relevant trials. Through the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration (EUHTC) communication took place with authors of identified randomised controlled trials to ask for information on any other recent and ongoing trials known to them. Specialists involved in research on the repair of inguinal hernia were contacted to ask for information about any further completed and ongoing trials. The world wide web was also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic groin hernia repair with open groin hernia repair were eligible for inclusion. Trials were included irrespective of the language in which they were reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Individual patient data were obtained, where possible, from the responsible trialist for all eligible studies. All reanalyses were cross-checked by the reviewers and verified by the trialists before inclusion. Where IPD were unavailable additional aggregate data were sought from trialists and published aggregate data checked and verified by the trialists. IPD were available for 25 trials, additional aggregated data for seven and published data only for nine. Where possible, time to event analysis for hernia recurrence and return to usual activities were performed on an intention to treat principle. The main analyses were based on all trials. Sensitivity analyses based on the data source and trial quality were also performed. Pre-defined subgroup analyses based on recurrent hernias, bilateral hernias and femoral hernias were also carried out. MAIN RESULTS: 41 published reports of eligible trials were included involving 7161 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 38 to 994, with follow-up from 6 weeks to 36 months. Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopic groups (WMD 14.81 minutes, 95% CI 13.98 to 15.64; p<0001). Operative complications were uncommon for both methods but more frequent in the laparoscopic group for visceral (Overall 8/2315 versus 1/2599) and vascular (Overall 7/2498 versus 5/2758) injuries. Length of hospital stay did not differ between groups (WMD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; p=0.05, but return to usual activity was earlier for laparoscopic groups (HR 0.56, 95%CI 0.51 to 0.61; p<0.0001 - equivalent to 7 days). The data available showed less persisting pain (Overall 290/2101 versus 459/2399; Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.64; p<0.0001), and less persisting numbness (Overall 102/1419 versus 217/1624; Peto OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.4286 to 0.49; p<0.0001) in the laparoscopic groups. In total, 86 recurrences were reported amongst 3138 allocated laparoscopic repair and 109 amongst 3504 allocated to open repair (Peto OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08; p = 0.16). The use of mesh during laparoscopic hernia repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of hernia recurrence, significantly so for the transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) versus open non-mesh repair (overall 26/1440 versus preperitoneal repair (TAPP) versus open non-mesh repair (overall 26/1440 versus 47/1119; Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; p=0.0009). However, no difference was detected when comparing laparoscopic methods with open mesh methods of hernia repair. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The use of mesh during laparoscopic hernia repair is associated with a relative reduction in the risk of hernia recurrence of around 30-50%. However, there is no apparent difference in recurrence between laparoscopic and open mesh methods of hernia repair. The data suggests less persisting pain and numbness following laparoscopic repair. Return to usual activities is faster. However, operation times are longer and there appears to be a higher risk of serious complication rate in respect of visceral (especially bladder) and vascular injuries.

D Toryerson

Papers

Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: a randomised comparison