Minimally invasive preperitoneal single-layer mesh repair versus standard Lichtenstein hernia repair for inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized trial

Minimizing complications following transinguinal preperitoneal modified Kugel mesh herniorrhaphy: a double blind prospective randomized clinical trial

Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) single-layer mesh herniorrhaphy has been proven effective. Mesh manufacturers make either a single-unit, two-layer mesh design or a separate optional onlay with the pre-peritoneal mesh. For peace of mind, most surgeons still incorporate the optional onlay. This study evaluated any counterproductive effects of adding the onlay to single-layer TIPP mesh herniorrhaphy and compared the long-term efficacy. This prospective, single-surgeon, single-center, randomized trial compared two groups of 50 consecutive patients at a 1 to 1 ratio. The control group received a single-layer modified Kugel mesh in the preperitoneal space, while the study group received the optional onlay mesh in the inguinal canal with preperitoneal mesh placement. A single surgeon performed the same operation to place the preperitoneal mesh in both groups, the only difference being the placement of the optional onlay mesh in the study group. A blinded researcher performed post-operative interviews using a series of questions at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and another unblinded researcher organized and performed statistical analysis of the peri-operative and post-operative data. The primary endpoints included foreign body sensation, pain, and any other discomfort in the inguinal region following surgery; and the secondary endpoints included recurrence and any complications related to surgery. The patient demographics were similar between the two groups. The average follow-up period was 29 months. Two patients in the 1-layer group and one patient in the 2-layer group were lost to follow-up. Postoperative pain, numbness and soreness were similar between groups. No patients experienced a foreign body sensation after 3 months in the 1-layer group, while five patients still had a foreign body sensation at 12 months in the 2-layer group. No recurrence was noted in either group during the follow-up period. Adequate dissection of the preperitoneal space is the key to a successful single-layer TIPP herniorrhaphy. With decreased materials in the inguinal canal, single-layer TIPP has a lower rate of long-term postoperative discomfort without increasing the risk of future recurrence.

Trial registration: ISRCTN 47111213

A registry-based 2-year follow-up comparative study of two meshes used in transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) groin hernia repair

PURPOSE

Onflex™ mesh has replaced Polysoft™ patch on the market, without being clinically evaluated thus far in the transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique.

METHODS

All consecutive TIPP registered in our registry during the overlap period of availability of both meshes were included and studied with the chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) as primary endpoint, assessed with a verbal rating scale (VRS), and included in a patient-related outcome measurement (PROM) phone questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 181 Onflex cases vs 182 Polysoft cases were studied with a 2-year follow-up rate of 92% vs 88%. The overall rate of pain or discomfort was not statistically different in the 2 studied subgroups (16.5% vs 17.6%; p = 0.71), while moderate or severe pain were significantly more frequent in the Polysoft subgroup (5.5% vs 11.6%; p = 0.01). These symptoms did not interfere with the patient daily life in 16% vs 16.5% of cases, and they were self-assessed as more bothersome than the hernia in only 0.5% vs 0.5% of cases, suggesting an overestimation of the pain by the VRS. Patients assessed the result of their hernia repair as excellent or good in 97.8% vs 96.7% and medium or bad in 2.2% vs 3.3% (p = 0.53). The cumulative recurrence rate was 0% vs 2.2%. Two reoperations (one for early and one for late recurrence) were reported in the Polysoft subgroup (1%), none related to the non-absorbable memory ring.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that TIPP with Onflex provides results at least similar than those with Polysoft.

Effects of inguinal hernia repair on trunk muscle strength, quality of life, and neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND:

The Lichtenstein’s and Kugel’s procedures for inguinal hernia repair have been compared in terms of immediate complications, including hematoma, testicular pain and wound infection, and long-term outcomes such as chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of the present study was to compare trunk muscle strength, quality of life (QoL), and neuropathic pain (NP) components using a prospective controlled study following the above two procedures.

METHODS:

Sixty consecutive patients underwent elective inguinal hernia repair from 2013 until 2014. Thirty patients were operated using standard Lichtenstein, while 30 were treated with a Kugel patch. Six months after initial surgery, trunk muscle strength and patient QoL were evaluated. Additionally, 40 healthy volunteers, matched for age and sex, were recruited for comparison. Trunk muscle strength was measured isokinetically, whereas QoL and pain level were assessed using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the PainDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q), respectively.

RESULTS:

Mean peak moment of trunk flexion and trunk flexor-extensor (agonist/antagonist) ratio were significantly lower in patients than in controls, while no differences were observed between the two surgery groups. In addition, trunk extension strength was mearly identical in all there (2 experimental, 1 control) groups. Only two patients in the Lichtenstein group and one patient in the Kugel group showed a PD-Q score over 19 and NP component. There was no difference in the PD-Q scores and SF-36 domains between the different surgery groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Based on the outcome parameters evaluated in this study, none of the two surgical interventions is superior to the other. Therefore, the particular choice of surgical procedure should rely on other factors.

Comparison of minimally invasive preperitoneal (MIP) single-layer mesh repair and total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair for inguinal hernia in terms of postoperative chronic pain: a prospective randomized trial

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare minimally invasive preperitoneal (MIP) single layer mesh repair with total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair in terms of complications, recurrence, and chronic pain.

Material and Methods

A total of 240 patients who underwent elective, primary, unilateral inguinal hernia operation between April 2011 and September 2012 were divided into two randomized groups. The first group underwent MIP repair and the second group underwent TEP repair. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Sheffield Scale (SS) were used to evaluate chronic pain.

Results

In all, 225 (95%) of the patients completed follow-up and were included in analyses. A significant difference was not detected between groups in terms of demographics, operative time, or intraoperative, early, or late complications. Length of time before return to work was significantly shorter in the TEP group (p <0.001). Recurrence was seen in 1 (0.88%) patient in the MIP group and 1 (0.89%) patient in the TEP group (p= 0.993). Evaluation of chronic pain revealed no significant difference between groups in VAS and SS values at postoperative 6th, 12th, and 24th months.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it was observed that MIP repair for inguinal hernia has all of the advantages of preperitoneal repair and eliminates disadvantages of TEP repair. MIP technique is as safe as TEP repair and has similar qualities in terms of chronic pain, even though it is an open intervention.

International guidelines for groin hernia management

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Preperitoneal Suction Technique to Secure the Proper Mesh Position During Laparoscopic Herniorrhaphy

Purpose:

Dislocation of the mesh is 1 cause of recurrence after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). Here, we propose a new procedure, the “preperitoneal cavity suction technique,” to confirm mesh position during LIHR under a transabdominal preperitoneal approach (TAPP).

Patients and Methods:

We developed the “preperitoneal cavity suction technique” during LIHR by TAPP, visualizing the mesh through the closed peritoneum by vacuuming up the carbon dioxide and effusion at the preperitoneal cavity using a suction tube inserted through the tunnel from a laterally placed trocar into the preperitoneal space. We applied this technique in adults with inguinal hernias who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery in our hospital between April 2013 and March 2015.

Results:

In total, 84 lesions were treated in 74 consecutive LIHRs by TAPP. The “preperitoneal cavity suction technique” was applied to 83 lesions. We confirmed appropriate positioning of the mesh for 82 of the 83 lesions (98.8%), with dislocation of the mesh detected in 1 case. In that case, we reopened the peritoneal flap and repositioned the mesh correctly during the operation. No patients complained of pain or a sense of discomfort, and no hematoma was identified around the dissected area or anterior superior iliac spine on the affected side. Mean duration of hospitalization was 2.5 days. No cases of hernia recurrence were observed during follow-up (range, 7 to 31 mo; median, 15 mo).

Conclusions:

The “preperitoneal suction technique” seems useful to detect mesh dislocation and has potential to reduce TAPP-related complications.

Open preperitoneal groin hernia repair with mesh: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

For the repair of inguinal hernias, several surgical methods have been presented where the purpose is to place a mesh in the preperitoneal plane through an open access. The aim of this systematic review was to describe preperitoneal repairs with emphasis on the technique.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Cochrane library and Embase were searched systematically. Studies were included if they provided clinical data with more than 30 days follow up following repair of an inguinal hernia with an open preperitoneal mesh technique.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 67 articles were included, describing nine different methods: Kugel, TREPP, TIPP, Onstep, Horton/Florence, Nyhus, Ugahary, Read, and Stoppa. In general, results regarding pain, recurrences and complications seem promising. It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. Open preperitoneal techniques with placement of a mesh through an open approach seem promising compared with the standard anterior techniques. This systematic review provides an overview of these techniques together with a description of surgical methods and clinical outcomes.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUNDS

Current open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair have shown similar recurrence rates. However, chronic pain has been associated with Lichtenstein mesh repair, the most common surgical procedure for inguinal hernia in the UK. The position of the mesh is probably an important factor. The Lichtenstein method requires dissection of the inguinal wall and fixation of the mesh. In contrast, in the open preperitoneal approach the mesh is placed in the preperitoneal space and held in place with intra-abdominal pressure. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best open approach for repair of inguinal hernia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open preperitoneal mesh repair compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia.

DATA SOURCES

We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) from inception to November 2014 and contacted experts in the field.

REVIEW METHODS

Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared open preperitoneal mesh repair with Lichtenstein mesh repair for the treatment of inguinal hernia. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion. One reviewer completed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included studies, and two reviewers independently cross-checked the details extracted. Meta-analyses techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of open mesh procedures from a NHS health services perspective over a 25-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 1568 participants were included. Participants who underwent open preperitoneal mesh repair returned to work and normal activities significantly earlier than those who underwent Lichtenstein mesh repair [mean difference -1.49 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.78 to -0.20 days]. Although no significant differences were observed between the two open approaches for incidence of pain [risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27], numbness (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.56), recurrences (Peto odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.52) or postoperative complications, fewer events were generally reported after open preperitoneal mesh repair. The results of the economic evaluation indicate that the open preperitoneal mesh repair was £256 less costly and improved health outcomes by 0.041 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair. The open preperitoneal procedure was the most efficient and dominant treatment strategy with a high (> 98%) probability of being cost-effectiveness for the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 for a QALY. Results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. However, the magnitude of cost saving or QALY gain was sensitive to some model assumptions.

LIMITATIONS

Overall, the included trials were of small sample size (mean 130.7 participants) and at high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analyses results demonstrated significant statistical heterogeneity for most of the assessed outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Open preperitoneal mesh repair appears to be a safe and efficacious alternative to Lichtenstein mesh repair. Further research is required to determine the long-term effects of these surgical procedures as well as the most effective open preperitoneal repair technique in terms of both clinical efficacy and costs.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013510.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Emerging Trends in Abdominal Wall Reinforcement: Bringing Bio-Functionality to Meshes

Abdominal wall hernia is a recurrent issue world-wide and requires the implantation of over 1 million meshes per year. Because permanent meshes such as polypropylene and polyester are not free of complications after implantation, many mesh modifications and new functionalities have been investigated over the last decade. Indeed, mesh optimization is the focus of intense development and the biomaterials utilized are now envisioned as being bioactive substrates that trigger various physiological processes in order to prevent complications and to promote tissue integration. In this context, it is of paramount interest to review the most relevant bio-functionalities being brought to new meshes and to open new avenues for the innovative development of the next generation of meshes with enhanced properties for functional abdominal wall hernia repair.