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 SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic groin hernia repair with open groin hernia repair were eligible for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.

Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair

Background Inguinal hernias can be repaired by laparoscopic techniques, which have had better results than open surgery in several small studies. Methods We performed a randomized, multicenter trial in which 487 patients with inguinal hernias were treated by extraperitoneal laparoscopic repair and 507 patients were treated by conventional anterior repair. We recorded information about postoperative recovery and complications and examined the patients for recurrences one and six weeks, six months, and one and two years after surgery. Results Six patients in the open-surgery group but none in the laparoscopic-surgery group had wound abscesses (P = 0.03), and the patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group had a more rapid recovery (median time to the resumption of normal daily activity, 6 vs. 10 days; time to the return to work, 14 vs. 21 days; and time to the resumption of athletic activities, 24 vs. 36 days; P<0.001 for all comparisons). With a median follow-up of 607 days, 31 patients (6 percent) in the o...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362201

Comparison of Conventional Anterior Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inguinal-Hernia Repair

Background Inguinal hemia repair is one of the most common operations undertaken in routine surgical practice. It generally carries a very low risk of major adverse sequelae. We analysed profiles, separately, for elective and emergency operations to report on the incidence and major adverse outcomes of inguinal hernia repair in a geographically defined population. Methods Age- and sex-specific hospital admission rates, emergency readmission rates within 30 days of discharge, and mortality rates, separately for elective and emergency operations, were calculated for the period 1976-1986 in the Oxford Record Linkage Study (ORLS) area. Results In all, 30,675 inguinal hernia repairs were performed in the area, an all-ages annual incidence of 13 per 10,000 population. Some 9% of patients underwent operation in an emergency admission. Elective operation rates remained constant over time. Emergency repairs decreased significantly over time in males. Patients who underwent emergency repair were older, had higher emergency readmission rates than those undergoing elective repair, and had significantly elevated postoperative mortality rates. In those who died it was uncommon for inguinal hernia to be recorded on their death certificates. Of the operations, 91% were undertaken on males; age-specific rates were highest in infants and the elderly; and emergency operation rates rose exponentially with age in people > 50 years. Conclusions The lifetime 'risk' of inguinal hernia repair is high: at currently prevailing rates we estimate it at 27% for men and 3% for women. There is significant elevation of mortality after emergency operations. Elective repair of inguinal hernia should be undertaken soon after the diagnosis is made to minimize the risk of adverse outcomes.

/pdf/inguinal-hernia-repair-incidence-of-elective-and-emergency-4hsq6vuiqq.pdf

Inguinal Hernia Repair: Incidence of Elective and Emergency Surgery, Readmission and Mortality

Background The Cooperative Hernia Study assessed postoperative pain in a prospective trial as part of a larger study looking at the recurrence rate and other morbidity of the Bassini, McVay, and Shouldice repairs. Methods Patients were randomized to one of three surgical hernia repairs. Patients were seen in follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months and were assessed for the presence of pain, numbness, paresthesia, and recurrence. Results Three hundred fifteen patients were seen in follow-up, with 276 seen at the 2-year mark. At 1 year, 62.9% of patients had groin or inguinal pain and 11.9% of patients had moderate to severe pain; 53.6% had pain and 10.6% of patients continued to report moderate to severe pain 2 years postoperatively. The predictors for long-term postoperative pain were as follows: absence of a visible bulge before the operation (p Conclusion Pain or numbness are common late sequelae of traditional external surgical hernia repairs. Strategies need to be developed to reduce the risk of these complications.

Cooperative hernia study. Pain in the postrepair patient

After reviewing the available classifications for groin hernias, the European Hernia Society (EHS) proposes an easy and simple classification based on the Aachen classification The EHS will promote the general and systematic use of this classification for intraoperative description of the type of hernia and to increase the comparison of results in the literature

/pdf/the-european-hernia-society-groin-hernia-classication-simple-2imva9e785.pdf

The European hernia society groin hernia classication: simple and easy to remember

Inguinal hernia repair in adults

For nearly a century, the Bassini repair was the treatment of choice for inguinal her-nias in Germany [2]. The Shouldice technique, first published in 1945, was introduced to Germany at the beginning of the last decade [7, 8]. Within 10 years, it became the standard procedure for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias in more than 50% of the hospitals in Germany [10].

K. H. Treutner

Papers

Inguinal hernia repair in adults

Shouldice Repair for Recurrent Inguinal Hernia — A Ten-Year Follow-Up