Lightweight Versus Heavyweight Mesh in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Is mesh pore size associated with the outcome in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair? - a registry-based multivariable analysis

INTRODUCTION

In inguinal hernia repair, mesh weight and pore size are used to describe the mesh characteristics. One meta-analysis of laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repairs identified 12 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2,909 patients who had all been treated with lightweight (≤ 50 g/m²) or heavyweight (> 70 g/m²) meshes. None of the 12 RCTs gave details of the pore size. There were more recurrences when using lightweight meshes, in particular in the case of medial defects without mesh fixation and/or large defects. In terms of pain, no significant differences were seen. This retrospective analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry now aims to analyze whether mesh pore size is related to the outcome in laparo-endoscopic inguinal repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To analyze the association between mesh pore size and the outcome in laparo-endoscopic inguinal repair, it was necessary to select meshes with comparable properties. Polyester meshes and PTFE meshes had to be excluded and polypropylene and polyvinylidene fluoride meshes (PVDF) were included. 83,768 included patients were retrospectively analyzed. The meshes analyzed were eight small-pore and 13 large-pore meshes. Using a binary logistic regression model, it is possible to simultaneously analyze several factors being potentially associated with the outcome.

RESULTS

Higher BMI, lower weight meshes, higher ASA score and medial EHS classification were associated with a higher risk of recurrence. It was not possible to find any significant association between pore size and recurrences at one-year follow-up. This also applied for pain on exertion and pain requiring treatment.

CONCLUSION

No association was identified between the pore size of the meshes used in laparo-endoscopic inguinal repair and the recurrence rate, pain on exertion rate or the rate of chronic pain requiring treatment at one-year follow-up.

Postoperative Outcomes and Recurrence Rate in Laparoscopic Tep Inguinal Hernia Repairs Using Partially Absorbable Meshes: A Retrospective Single-Surgeon Study Over a 5-Year Period

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative outcomes and recurrence rate in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs performed over a 5-year period with totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique and use of partially absorbable meshes.

Methods

A total of 100 patients (mean (SD, min-max) age: 51.0 (14.6, 16-83) years, 91.0% were males) who underwent 150 laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repairs (bilateral in 50 patients) with use of the partially absorbable mesh were retrospectively reviewed. Data on patient demographics, hernia characteristics (side, subtype), date of operation, operating time, early and late postoperative complications as well as the recurrence rate were recorded over a 5-year period.

Results

The inguinal hernia was bilateral in 50 (50.0%) patients and indirect hernia was noted in 53 (53.0%) patients, while lipoma was evident in 17 (17.0%) cases. Median operating time was 45.0 min (range, 23.0 to 140.0 min). Overall, seroma occurred in 6 (6.0%) patients and was treated conservatively, while none of patients developed preperitoneal hematoma, infection or persistent chronic inguinal pain. Recurrence rate was 0.67% (1/150 operations) within a median 30.0 months (range, 2 to 60 months) of postoperative follow-up. Bilateral hernia was associated with significantly longer operating time compared to left or right unilateral hernia (median (min-max) 50.0 (34.0-140.0) vs. 40.0 (23-80) and 40.0 (25.0-130.0) min, p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively). Operating time was positively correlated both with patient age (r=0.240, p=0.017) and BMI (r=0.205, p=0.044).

Conclusion

In conclusion, our findings indicate that laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with use of the partially absorbable meshes enables a favorable postoperative outcome with minimal early and late postoperative complications and 0.67% recurrence rate over a 5-year period.

Chronic inguinal pain post-hernioplasty. Laparo-endoscopic surgery vs lichtenstein repair: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Annually, over 20 million patients worldwide undergo inguinal hernia repair procedures. Surgery stands as the recommended treatment, however, a consensus on the optimal method is lacking. This study aims to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the risk of chronic inguinal pain and recurrence between laparo-endoscopic mesh repair (TAPP and TEP) versus Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults, published in English and Spanish, comparing surgical outcomes among the Lichtenstein open technique, TAPP, and/or TEP. Adherence to the PRISMA guidelines was maintained in the methodology, and the CASP tool was employed to assess the quality of the articles. Statistical analysis involved mean [± standard deviation (SD)], Odds Ratio (OR), and Confidence Interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs encompassing 1,469 patients randomized to Lichtenstein repair (n = 755) and laparo-endoscopic repair (n = 714) were included. Laparo-endoscopic repair was associated with a lower likelihood of chronic inguinal pain compared to Lichtenstein repair (OR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.30-0.56], p = 0.0001). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between the laparo-endoscopic and the Lichtenstein group (OR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.57-1.86], p = 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that laparo-endoscopic hernia surgery leads to a lower incidence of chronic inguinal pain compared to Lichtenstein repair, while maintaining similar rates of recurrence.

An international survey of 1014 hernia surgeons: outcome of GLACIER (global practice of inguinal hernia repair) study

INTRODUCTION

The practice of inguinal hernia repair varies internationally. The global practice of inguinal hernia repair study (GLACIER) aimed to capture these variations in open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey was created on a web-based platform, and the link was shared on various social media platforms, personal e-mail network of authors, and e-mails to members of the endorsed organisations, which include British Hernia Society (BHS), The Upper Gastrointestinal Surgical Society (TUGSS), and Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC).

RESULTS

A total of 1014 surgeons from 81 countries completed the survey. Open and laparoscopic approaches were preferred by 43% and 47% of participants, respectively. Transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair (TAPP) was the favoured minimally invasive approach. Bilateral and recurrent hernia following previous open repair were the most common indications for a minimally invasive procedure. Ninety-eight percent of the surgeons preferred repair with a mesh, and synthetic monofilament lightweight mesh with large pores was the most common choice. Lichtenstein repair was the most favoured open mesh repair technique (90%), while Shouldice repair was the favoured non-mesh repair technique. The risk of chronic groin pain was quoted as 5% after open repair and 1% after minimally invasive repair. Only 10% of surgeons preferred to perform an open repair using local anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This survey identified similarities and variations in practice internationally and some discrepancies in inguinal hernia repair compared to best practice guidelines, such as low rates of repair using local anaesthesia and the use of lightweight mesh for minimally invasive repair. It also identifies several key areas for future research, such as incidence, risk factors, and management of chronic groin pain after hernia surgery and the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic hernia surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hernia sac management in laparoscopic groin hernia mesh repair: reduction or transection?

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding hernia sac management during laparoscopic hernia repair, and this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of sac reduction (RS) and sac transection (TS) during laparoscopic mesh hernia repair.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. We used the RevMan 5.4 statistical package from the Cochrane collaboration for meta-analysis. A random effects model was used.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded six eligible studies including 2941 patients: 821 patients in the TS group and 2120 patients in the RS group. In the pooled analysis, the TS group was associated with a lower incidence of seroma (OR = 1.71; 95% CI [1.22, 2.39], p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stay (MD = -0.07; 95% CI [-0.12, -0.02], p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of morbidity (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.34, 2.19], p = 0.76), operative time (MD = -4.39; 95% CI [-13.62, 4.84], p = 0.35), recurrence (OR = 2.70; 95% CI [0.50, 14.50], p = 0.25), and Postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that hernia sac transection is associated with a lower seroma rate and shorter hospital stay with similar morbidity, operative time, recurrence, and postoperative pain compared to the reduction of the hernia sac.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID CRD42023391730.

Totally extra-peritoneal repair versus trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair for the laparoscopic surgical management of sportsman's hernia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open and laparoscopic modalities are employed for treatment of sportsman's hernia with totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) and trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic approaches both currently being utilised. At present, neither subtype has demonstrated a beneficial superiority for sportsman's hernia repair, as concluded in the most recent systematic review comparing the outcomes of each technique. The aim of this review was to evaluate current evidence to ascertain whether there was a difference in laparoscopic techniques following sportsman's hernia repair.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for RCTs and observational studies, respectively.The assessed outcomes included median time to return to sporting activity, complications and the degree of postoperative pain reduction within three months. Random effects model was used to calculate pooled proportion data where feasible. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

28 studies were identified including 2 RCTs and 26 observational studies. No significant differences were observed between techniques in the primary or secondary outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in all outcomes. This was more pronounced for return to sporting activity meaning that meta-analysis was not feasible in this domain. Median time to return to sporting activity was 28 days for both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no observed difference in the primary and secondary outcomes in either technique. An RCT comparing TEP and TAPP repair is needed to provide definitive data on this matter.

A preliminary evaluation of two different meshes in minimally invasive inguinal hernia surgery

BACKGROUND

Many meshes are available for use in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The surgeon must consider several factors when choosing a mesh for hernia repair including clinical outcomes, cost, and ease of use. The purpose of this study was to compare two different lightweight polypropylene meshes for laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs.

METHODS

Subjects were randomized immediately before surgery. Data were reported in N (%) and median [Q1-Q3], comparisons of mesh insertion time were tested using a 2 × 2 ANOVA on the ranked times, comparisons between categorical variables were tested with Fisher's Exact, and all data were analyzed using SAS® 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc.).

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and June 2016, 50 subjects were enrolled; two were excluded. Of 48 eligible subjects, most were Caucasian (N = 42, 88%), male (N = 37, 77%), with a median age of 63, and were randomized evenly between 3DMax™ mesh and Ultrapro® mesh. Robotic mesh placement significantly increased insertion time regardless of mesh type (p < .0001). When comparing NASA-TLX self-assessment surveys, there was no significant difference between the meshes in difficulty of placement. The type of mesh did not significantly impact the insertion time regardless of robot use (p = 0.523).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that mesh insertion times comparing two different lightweight polypropylene meshes were not significantly different. Increased insertion times associated with robotic repair are likely due to the mechanics of robotic suturing and associated learning curve. Our data suggest that these meshes can be used interchangeably based on the surgeon's preference.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01825187.