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. 
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. 
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.

/pdf/international-guidelines-for-groin-hernia-management-3otlldvdxc.pdf

International guidelines for groin hernia management

Guidelines are the bridge between science and clinical practice [1]. Science is a dynamic process and it is continuously evolving. Consequently, there is a continual development of new insights necessitation updates of existing guidelines. For this update, the authors concentrated on studies with level of 1 and 2 evidence. All references are marked with the level of evidence, according to the Oxford classification. In general “Recommendation Grade D” does not constitute a recommendation, but in some instances it is shown in the text to indicate lack of quality data. We recommended all readers to download the original statements and recommendations [2], for fully appreciation of the Update Guidelines on Laparoscopic Hernia Surgery.

Updates should include issues that were not yet sufficiently covered in the original guidelines or those which have gained increased clinical importance. For this reason, the Update includes four new chapters: single port surgery, convalescence, costs and training. The update process was started in March 2013. All the authors were requested to commence revision of their chapters between January 2009 and September 30th 2013. An Update Consensus Conference was held on October 23–26, 2013 in Windhoek/Namibia, following which, the first versions of the updates were presented to the delegates and extensively discussed. Based on these discussions the definite update was formulated and circulated for approval by all the involved experts.

/pdf/update-of-guidelines-on-laparoscopic-tapp-and-endoscopic-tep-4c6xgb7caf.pdf

Update of Guidelines on Laparoscopic (TAPP) and Endoscopic (TEP) Treatment of Inguinal Hernia (International Endohernia Society)

Importance Clinical experience suggests that there are substantial differences in patient complexity across medical specialties, but empirical data are lacking. Objective To compare the complexity of patients seen by different types of physician in a universal health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants Population-based retrospective cohort study of 2 597 127 residents of the Canadian province of Alberta aged 18 years and older with at least 1 physician visit between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015. Data were analyzed in September 2018. Exposures Type of physician seeing each patient (family physician, general internist, or 11 types of medical subspecialist) assessed as non–mutually exclusive categories. Main Outcomes and Measures Nine markers of patient complexity (number of comorbidities, presence of mental illness, number of types of physicians involved in each patient’s care, number of physicians involved in each patient’s care, number of prescribed medications, number of emergency department visits, rate of death, rate of hospitalization, rate of placement in a long-term care facility). Results Among the 2 597 127 participants, the median (interquartile range) age was 46 (32-59) years and 54.1% were female. Over 1 year of follow-up, 21 792 patients (0.8%) died, the median (range) number of days spent in the hospital was 0 (0-365), 8.1% of patients had at least 1 hospitalization, and the median (interquartile range) number of prescribed medications was 3 (1-7). When the complexity markers were considered individually, patients seen by nephrologists had the highest mean number of comorbidities (4.2; 95% CI, 4.2-4.3 vs [lowest] 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1), highest mean number of prescribed medications (14.2; 95% CI, 14.2-14.3 vs [lowest] 4.9; 95% CI, 4.9-4.9), highest rate of death (6.6%; 95% CI, 6.3%-6.9% vs [lowest] 0.1%; 95% CI, Conclusion and Relevance Substantial differences were found in 9 different markers of patient complexity across different types of physician, including medical subspecialists, general internists, and family physicians. These findings have implications for medical education and health policy.

/pdf/comparison-of-the-complexity-of-patients-seen-by-different-4syixwxt3m.pdf

Comparison of the Complexity of Patients Seen by Different Medical Subspecialists in a Universal Health Care System.

Introduction
More than 20 years since the introduction of TAPP and TEP into clinical routine, there is a lack of clarity due to conflicting comparative data Therefore, more results from registries are needed

/pdf/tep-versus-tapp-comparison-of-the-perioperative-outcome-in-1vt296cjbf.pdf

TEP versus TAPP: comparison of the perioperative outcome in 17,587 patients with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia.

Since the 1990s, diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based payment systems were gradually introduced in many countries. The main design characteristics of a DRG-based payment system are an exhaustive patient case classification system (ie, the system of diagnosis-related groupings) and the payment formula, which is based on the base rate multiplied by a relative cost weight specific for each DRG. Cases within the same DRG code group are expected to undergo similar clinical evolution. Consecutively, they should incur the costs of diagnostics and treatment within a predefined scale. Such predictability was proven in a number of cost-of-illness studies conducted on major prosperity diseases alongside clinical trials on efficiency. This was the case with risky pregnancies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, depression, alcohol addiction, hepatitis, and cancer. This article presents experience of introduced DRG-based payments in countries of western and eastern Europe, Scandinavia, United States, Canada, and Australia. This article presents the results of few selected reviews and systematic reviews of the following evidence: published reports on health system reforms by World Health Organization, World Bank, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, and Centre for Health Economics University of York. Diverse payment systems have different strengths and weaknesses in relation to the various objectives. The advantages of the DRG payment system are reflected in the increased efficiency and transparency and reduced average length of stay. The disadvantage of DRG is creating financial incentives toward earlier hospital discharges. Occasionally, such polices are not in full accordance with the clinical benefit priorities.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2333392816647892

Review of Diagnosis-Related Group-Based Financing of Hospital Care:

Objective This paper provides a comprehensive overview of hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) in low- and middle-income countries It also explores design and implementation issues and the related challenges countries face Methods A literature research for papers on DRG-based payment systems in low- and middle-income countries was conducted in English, French and Spanish through Pubmed, the Pan American Health Organization's Regional Library of Medicine and Google Findings Twelve low- and middle-income countries have DRG-based payment systems and another 17 are in the piloting or exploratory stage Countries have chosen from a wide range of imported and self-developed DRG models and most have adapted such models to their specific contexts All countries have set expenditure ceilings In general, systems were piloted before being implemented The need to meet certain requirements in terms of coding standardization, data availability and information technology made implementation difficult Private sector providers have not been fully integrated, but most countries have managed to delink hospital financing from public finance budgeting Conclusion Although more evidence on the impact of DRG-based payment systems is needed, our findings suggest that (i) the greater portion of health-care financing should be public rather than private; (ii) it is advisable to pilot systems first and to establish expenditure ceilings; (iii) countries that import an existing variant of a DRG-based system should be mindful of the need for adaptation; and (iv) countries should promote the cooperation of providers for appropriate data generation and claims management

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/10/12-115931.pdf

Hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups: experiences in low- and middle-income countries

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery is increasingly seen as the superior technique in hernia repair. Compared to open-mesh hernia repair, laparoscopic approaches are often reported to be more cost-effective but incur higher costs for the provider. The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair of nonincarcerated inguinal hernias in men on hospital costs and length of stay (LoS). We used routine administrative, highly standardized, patient-level cost data from 15 German hospitals participating in the national cost data study. We compared TEP, TAPP, and open-mesh repair. We conducted propensity score matching to account for baseline differences between treatment groups and subsequently estimated the treatment effect on costs and LoS. Total costs for both TEP and TAPP surgery were significantly lower than those for open-mesh repair (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.05, respectively). TEP repair also had a slight but nonsignificant advantage in total costs compared to TAPP repair, while TAPP surgery was associated with a significantly shorter LoS than TEP (p < 0.001). Results suggest that laparoscopic approaches in hernia repair are not necessarily associated with higher hospital resource consumption than open-mesh repair.

Comparison of hospital costs and length of stay associated with open-mesh, totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair, and transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: An analysis of observational data using propensity score matching

Friedrich Wittenbecher

Papers

Hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups: experiences in low- and middle-income countries

Comparison of hospital costs and length of stay associated with open-mesh, totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair, and transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: An analysis of observational data using propensity score matching