Occurrence and management of postoperative bleeding in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a single-institution case series

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is a safe, effective treatment for inguinal hernias and is considered, by some, to be the procedure of choice for recurrent inguinal hernias. Little is known, however, about the frequency with which laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is performed and the determinants of its utilization. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing outpatient inguinal hernia repairs in Florida in 2002 and 2003, using the AHRQ State Ambulatory Surgery Database. We compared patient demographics, indication for procedure, location of procedure (i.e., hospital or ambulatory surgery center), and charges for laparoscopic and open repairs. Of 58,172 outpatient inguinal hernia repairs, 11,351 (19.5%) were performed laparoscopically. In the subset of 6221 recurrent inguinal hernias, only 1276 (20.5%) were performed laparoscopically. Patients undergoing a laparoscopic repair were younger (52.7 versus 57.4 years; P < 0.001), more likely to be of the white race (84.4 vs. 79.3%; P < 0.001), and more likely to have private insurance (62.0 versus 47.2%; P < 0.001), compared to those undergoing open repair. Laparoscopic repairs resulted in higher charges than open repairs ($12,087 versus $7,580; P < 0.001). Laparoscopic repairs were less commonly performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) than at hospitals (13.7 versus 20.9%; P < 0.001), although ASCs had significantly lower charges for laparoscopic hernia repairs than did hospitals ($6,973 versus $12,860; P < 0.001). The laparoscopic approach is used in only a small fraction of initial and recurrent inguinal hernia repairs and is used more commonly at hospitals than at ASCs. Although clinical indications play a role, the use of laparoscopy for inguinal hernia repair may also be influenced by financial considerations.

To establish the safety, short term outcome, and theatre costs of transabdominal laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia performed as day surgery. Randomised controlled trial. The control operation was the two layer modified Maloney darn. Teaching hospital and district general hospital. 125 men randomised to laparoscopic or open repair of inguinal hernia. Morbidity, postoperative pain and use of analgesics, quality of life, and theatre costs. Outcome was assessed by questionnaires administered to patients daily for 10 days and at six weeks postoperatively and by outpatient review at six weeks. Return to normal activity was assessed by questionnaire at three months. One vascular complication (2%) occurred in the group that had open repair. Seven complications (12%) including vessel injury and early recurrence arose in the group that had laparoscopic repair (difference in complication rate 10% (95% confidence interval 4% to 18%; P = 0.02). Pain scores and quality of life assessed by the short form 36 showed a significant benefit to the group that had laparoscopic repair in the early postoperative period. Return to normal activity was not significantly different between the two groups. Total theatre costs were higher in the group that had laparoscopic repair (mean cost for laparoscopic repair 850 pounds (622 pounds to 1078 pounds); mean cost for open repair 268 pounds (245 pounds to 292 pounds)). Because of the greater complication rate and higher theatre costs for laparoscopic repair and the patient outcome preferences expressed, the results of larger trials of clinical and cost effectiveness using recurrence as the primary outcome measure should be known before laparoscopic herniorrhaphy is widely adopted.

Sexual dysfunction after inguinal hernia complication is considered rare. However, its consequences impact on quality of life inevitably. Laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair may be comparable in terms of recurrent rate, overall complications, and chronic pain. Therefore, its complication is still questionable between these approaches. In this study, we compared sexual dysfunction and related complications between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies were performed to compare laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. Thirty RCTs (12,022 patients) were included. Overall, 6014 (50.02%) underwent laparoscopic hernia repair, and 6008 (49.98%) underwent open hernia repair. Laparoscopic approach provided non-significance benefit on pain during sexual activity (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.18, 1.76), Vas deferens injury (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.13, 1.63), orchitis (RR 0.84; CI 0.61,1.17), scrotal hematoma (RR 0.99; CI 0.62,1.60), and testicular atrophy (RR 0.46; CI 0.17,1.20). Meanwhile, the open inguinal hernia approach seems to perform better for cord seroma complications and testicular pain. There is no advantage of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair over an open approach concerning sexual dysfunction. On the contrary, there is an increasing risk of cord seroma after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with statistical significance.

The objective of this retrospective study was to assess safety and comparative clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) and robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) from multi-institutional experience in Taiwan. Medical records from a total of eight hospitals were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Patients primarily diagnosed of inguinal hernia, recurrent inguinal hernia or incarceration groin hernia patients who either underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair between January 2018 and December 2022 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics, intra-operative and post-operative results were analyzed. To compare two cohorts, overlap weighting was employed to balance the significant inter-group differences. We also conducted subgroup analyses by state of a hernia (primary or recurrent/incarceration) and laterality (unilateral or bilateral) that indicated complexity of surgery. A total of 1,080 patients who underwent minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair from 8 hospitals across Taiwan were collected. Following the application of inclusion criteria, there were 279 patients received RIHR and 763 patients received LIHR. In the baseline analysis, RIHR was more often performed in recurrent/incarceration (RIHR 18.6% vs LIHR 10.3%, p = 0.001) and bilateral cases (RIHR 81.4 vs LIHR 58.3, p < 0.001). Suturing was dominant mesh fixation method in RIHR (RIHR 81% vs LIHR 35.8%, p < 0.001). More overweight patients were treated with RIHR (RIHR 58.8% vs LIHR 48.9%, p = 0.006). After overlap weighting, there were no significant difference in intraoperative and post-operative complications between RIHR and LIHR. Reoperation and prescription rates of pain medication (opioid) were significantly lower in RIHR than LIHR in overall group comparison (reoperation: RIHR 0% vs. LIHR 2.9%, p = 0.016) (Opioid prescription: RIHR 3.34mg vs LIHR 10.82mg, p = 0.001) while operation time was significantly longer in RIHR (OR time: RIHR 155.27min vs LIHR 95.30min, p < 0.001). This real-world experience suggested that RIHR is a safe, and feasible option with comparable intra-operative and post-operative outcomes to LHIR. In our study, RIHR showed technical advantages in more complicated hernia cases with yielding to lower reoperation rates, and less opioid use.

Background: Laparoscopic and open are the two main ways of doing inguinal hernia repair. Laparoscopic repair has advantages including reduced postoperative pain and quicker recovery, however, feasibility, efficacy, and accessibility of this procedure in resource limited settings like Pakistan is not clear. Objective: To compare, evaluate and quantify the postoperative outcomes, complications, recovery time and patient satisfaction between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair at tertiary care setting in Pakistan. Methods: This was a prospective comparative study conducted at three tertiary care hospitals in Pakistan. Eighty adult patients with primary unilateral reducible inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Operative time, hospital stay and postoperative complications were the primary outcomes. Other outcomes included pain assessment by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), return to normal activities, and patient satisfaction. SPSS version 26.0 was used to perform statistical analysis, significance of p &lt; 0.05. Results: Operative time was longer with laparoscopic repair (91.2 ± 14.7 min vs. 57.9 ± 11.5 min, p &lt; 0.001) but shorter with hospital stay (1.1 ± 0.5 days vs. 2.5 ± 1.0 days, p &lt; 0.001). There was significantly lower postoperative pain in the LIHR group (p &lt; 0.001). The total complication rates were lower in the laparoscopic group (7.5 vs. 15.0, p = 0.048). The patients who have undergone laparoscopic repair were found to be more satisfied with the outcome. Conclusion: The postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair are better, such as less pain, less time in hospital and faster recovery. Despite it, in Pakistan its adoption is limited to due to cost and training requirements. Keywords: Inguinal hernia, Laparoscopic repair, Open repair, Postoperative outcomes, Patient satisfaction, minimally invasive surgery, Pakistan.

A retrospective nationwide comparison of laparoscopic vs open inguinal hernia repair in children

The role of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is controversial. The aim of this study was to find out whether it is justified to switch from the predominantly modified Bassini repair which the authors had been using to laparoscopic repair. Randomized controlled trial in 120 eligible patients admitted for elective hernia repair in a university hospital. Sixty patients underwent laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal mesh repair; the other 60 patients had an open repair, mostly with the modified Bassini technique. Operative time for laparoscopic repair was significantly longer, mean (s.d.) 95 (28) min vs 67 (27) min (p < 0.001). The mean analogue pain score during the first 24 h after surgery was 36.2 (20.2) in the laparoscopic group and 49.3 (24.9) in the open group (p = 0.006). The requirement for narcotic injections and postoperative disability in walking 10 m and getting out of bed were also significantly less following laparoscopic repair. The postoperative hospital stay was not significantly different, mean 2.6 (1.2) days for laparoscopic repair and 3.0 (1.5) days for open repair (p = 0.1). Patients were able to perform light activities without pain or discomfort sooner after laparoscopic repair, median interquartile range 8 (5-14) days vs 14 (8-19) days (p = 0.013). Patients also resumed heavy activities sooner, but not significantly, after laparoscopic repair, median 28 (17-60) days vs 35 (20-56) days (p = 0.25). The return to work was not significantly different, median 14 (8-25) days after laparoscopic repair and 15 (11-21) days after open repair (p = 0.14). After a mean follow-up of 32 months one patient developed a recurrent hernia 3 months after a laparoscopic repair. Laparoscopic repair was more costly than open repair by approximately $400. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was associated with less early postoperative pain and disability and earlier return to full activities than open repair, but there were no benefits regarding postoperative hospital stay and return to work; laparoscopic repair was also more costly.

The laparoscopic repair offers clear advantages in recurrent inguinal hernias after open herniorrhaphy. Less clear is the role of laparoscopy for recurrences after previous laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphies. In this paper, we present our experience with both laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair of laparoscopic recurrences. All patients who had undergone repair of recurrences after previous laparoscopic hernia repair from July 2004 to July 2007 were included in this study. Charts were reviewed for all these patients. Six patients were diagnosed with 7 recurrent inguinal hernias after laparoscopic repairs. All the initial laparoscopic repairs, except for one, were total preperitoneal (TEP) with the placement of lightweight polypropylene mesh. The average time from the initial repair to the diagnosis of recurrence was 20 months (range 3-84). Four of the 7 recurrences were treated with a laparoscopic approach. The other three recurrences were repaired in an open fashion as per the preoperative plan. In 2 of the laparoscopic cases, the peritoneal flap was not able to cover the mesh, so a tissue-separating mesh with fibrin sealant was utilized to cover the myopectineal orifice. No intra- or postoperative complications were recorded. There were no recurrences at an average follow-up of 14 months (range, 11-17). Laparoscopic repair can be offered to those patients with a recurrence after a previous laparoscopic repair. Further studies comparing laparoscopic repair versus open repair of recurrences after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair will be helpful in defining the best approach when encountering these recurrences.

Laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernias is an increasingly popular method of herniorrhaphy, providing advantages, including lower wound infection rates, faster recovery times and less postoperative pain compared with open procedures. The perioperative incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is low, but VTE is still one of the most common causes of postoperative mortality. Moreover, the VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis in inguinal hernia patients is not well defined. We present an unusual case of sudden death owing to acute pulmonary embolism after undergoing total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Medline and PubMed databases were searched using the keywords mentioned below, and the literature on VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is reviewed. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, which is regarded as a low risk procedure for VTE, has potential risks for VTE development in the perioperative period. The risks come from both surgical procedures and intrinsic patient characteristics. Clinicians should consider both the strength of individual risk factors and the cumulative weight of all risk factors prior to surgery. A full VTE risk assessment is essential with proper prophylaxis measures especially in quality-of-life procedures.

PurposeMesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair has improved patient outcomes compared to natural tissue repair. The method of fixation of the mesh to the abdominal wall and its impact on patient outcomes has not been determined as part of a trial sequential analysis. The aim of this study is to compare the use of glue and tackers in mesh fixation of inguinal and femoral hernia repair by meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).MethodMedline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched to retrieve relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing glue and tacker fixation in laparoscopic inguinal and femoral hernia repair, resulting in 648 studies, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. This data was systematically analysed using RevMan and TSA software.Results2312 patients were included in the 18 RCTs used in this study, with 1149 in the glue cohort and 1163 in the tacker cohort. Glue fixation significantly reduced risk of haematoma formation [MD (95% CI): 0.35 (0.17–0.73), P < 0.01]. Glue fixation resulted in significantly less acute pain [MD (95% CI): − 1.80 (− 2.71 to − 0.89), P < 0.01] and chronic pain [MD (95% CI): 0.42 (0.27–0.64), P < 0.01]. Glue fixation also allowed significantly quicker return to normal activity/work compared to tacker fixation [MD (95% CI): − 1.92 (− 3.17 to − 0.67), P < 0.01]. TSA confirmed that glue fixation significantly reduced early pain scores (< 3 months) and haematoma incidence compared to tacker fixation.ConclusionMesh fixation with glue is superior to tackers in reducing post-operative pain and haematomas, which means patients return to work/activity significantly faster. Surgeons should be aware of these benefits when consenting the patient for laparoscopic inguinal and femoral hernia repair.

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair: Outcomes and Predictors of Complications

Efficacy and safety of glue mesh fixation for laparoscopic inguinal hernia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To study the effect of short-time laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and open mesh-plug ventral hernia repair on abdominal inguinal herniation. Methods The clinical data of 67 patients with ventral hernias performed hernia repairing from January 2014 to December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were annalized for age, operation time, postoperative comlicationgs and length of hospital stay. Results Thirty-one patients underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair(LIHR), and 36 patients underwent open mesh-plug ventral hernia repair. There were no significant difference between the two groups in age or hospital stay. The mean operative time was (123±13)min for LIHR patients and (68±26)min for mesh-plug hernia repair patients, and the mount of bleeding between the two groups was significantly different (P<0.05). The difficulty of urination and postoperative pain of LIHR group were lower than those of mesh-plug hernia repair group. Conclusions The short-term results indicate that laparoscopic technique is effective for ventral hernia repairing. Key words: Ventral hernia; Laparoscopy; Mesh-plug; Herniorrhaphy

Aim: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia (IH) repair is an alternative to open surgery. A potential advantage of laparoscopic repair is prevention of contralateral metachronous hernia although some studies report higher recurrence rate. We aim to determine the cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic IH repair taking into account metachronous and recurrence rates. Methods: Retrospective single-center study of children (<5 years) undergoing elective open or laparoscopic repair for a unilateral IH between February 2018 and October 2019. Ten cases in each of four groups were included (open day case, open overnight, laparoscopic day case, and laparoscopic overnight). Cases incurring a higher cost due to comorbidities or additional procedure were excluded. Patient-level information and costing system data were obtained from the hospital finance. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) procedural cost was compared for open and laparoscopic procedures. A financial model was created factoring metachronous and recurrent rates. Results: Cost of open day case repair was £1866.24 (SD: 311.15) compared with £2210.13 (SD: 391.36) for day case laparoscopic repair. For overnight repair, cost of open was £2442.82 (SD: 497.05) compared with £2585.35 (SD: 384.66) for laparoscopic. On calculating the cost-effectiveness point using the difference in metachronous and recurrence rate between the two procedures, laparoscopic is more cost-effective than open day case repair at 18.43%. For overnight repair, the difference rate is 5.84%. Conclusion: Our data suggest that based on metachronous and recurrence rates in the current literature, laparoscopic IH repair is more cost-effective than open repair for cases requiring overnight stay, whereas for day case procedures open IH repair is more cost-effective.

Although laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) has been widely accepted for treating inguinal hernia, the procedure remains very technical and challenging. The present study aimed to assess the effect of LIHR in relation to operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage and postoperative hospitalization. A total of 503 patients with inguinal hernia admitted at the Wuxi Rehabilitation Hospital between June 2019 and July 2021 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Binary logistic and linear regressions were used for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The learning curve was drawn by cumulative sum analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified LIHR as an independent factor associated with prolonging operation time (odd ratio [OR] = 1.750, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.215-2.520, p = 0.003) and decreasing intraoperative hemorrhage levels (OR = 0.079, 95 CI: 0.044-0.142, p < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression identified LIHR (Coefficient = -0.702, 95%CI: [-1.050] to [-0.354], p < 0.001) as an independent factor for shortening postoperative hospitalization time. After learning curve, LIHR (OR = 1.409, 95%CI: 0.948 to 2.094, p = 0.090) no longer resulted as a risk factor prolonging operation time. LIHR is an important independent predictive factor for decreasing intraoperative hemorrhage levels and shortening postoperative hospitalization time. Additionally, LIHR does not prolong operation time after the learning curve.