Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Original article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

For the scientific evaluation of the endoscopic and open mesh techniques for the repair of inguinal hernia, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT) are necessary. The Lichtenstein repair is one of the most common open mesh techniques and therefore of special interest.

Methods

After an extensive search of the literature and a quality assessment, a total of 34 RCT comparing endoscopic procedures both transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and total extraperitoneal (TEP)—with various open mesh repairs were deemed to be suitable for a formal meta-analysis of the relevant parameters. These studies included data for 7,223 patients. Trials that used the Lichtenstein repair for the control group (23 of 34 trials) were analyzed-separately.

Results

Significant advantages for the endoscopic procedures compared with the Lichtenstein repair include a lower incidence of wound infection (Peto odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.26, 0.61), a reduction in hematoma formation (0.69 [0.54, 0.90]) and nerve injury (0.46 [0.35, 0.61]), an earlier return to normal activities or work (–1.35[–1.72, –0.97]), and fewer incidences of chronic pain syndrome (0.56[0.44, 0.70]). No difference was found in total morbidity or in the incidence of intestinal lesions, urinary bladder lesions, major vascular lesions, urinary retention and testicular problems. Significant advantages for the Lichtenstein repair include in a shorter operating time (5.45[1.18, 9.73]), a lower incidence of seroma formation (1.42[1.13, 1.79]), and fewer hernia recurrences (2.00[1.46, 2.74]). Similar results are seen when endoscopic procedures are compared with other open mesh repairs. However, in this comparison, total morbidity was lower with the endoscopic operations (0.73[0.61, 0.89]). The incidence of seroma formation, chronic pain syndromes, and hernia recurrence was not significantly different.

Conclusion

Endoscopic repairs do have advantages interms of local complications and pain-associated parameters. For more detailed evaluation further well-structured trials with improved standardization of hernia type, operative technique, and surgeons’ experience are necessary.

Keywords

Groin hernia Endoscopy Randomized controlled trials Evidence-based medicine Meta–analysis Herniotraphy Lichtenstein repair 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the following members of workgroup 8 of the National Consensus Conference for Hernia Surgery (Magdeburg, Germany, 28–30 November 2002) for their support: K. H. Bauer (Bochum), D. Birk (Zweibruecken), H. Keller (Donaueschingen), T. Manger (Gera), G. Meyer (Munich), and C. Peiper (Witten). Thanks also go to A. Hollins for her translation of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    McCormack, K Scott, NW Go, PMNYH Ross, S AM on behalf of the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration2003Laparoscopic versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair (Cochrane review)The Cochrane Library; Issue 4John Wiley & sons, Ltd.Chichester (UK)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vale, L, Ludbrook, A, Grant, A 2003Assessing the cost and consequences of laparoscopic vs open methods of groin hernia repairSurg Endosc17844849PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grant, AM European Union Hernia Trialists Collaboration2002Laparoscopic versus open groin hernia repair: meta-analysis of randomised trials based on individual patient dataHernia6210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Union Hernia Trialists Collaboration2002Repair of groin hernia with synthetic mesh: metaanalysis of randomized controlled trialsAnn Surg235322332Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Union Hernia Trialists Collaboration2000Laparoscopic compared with open methods of groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trialsBr J Surg87:860867Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Memon, MA, Cooper, NJ, Memon, MI, Abrams, KR 2003Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairBr J Surg9014791492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stylopoulos, N, Gazell, GS, Rattner, DW 2003A cost-utility analysis of treatment options for inguinal hernia in 1,513,008 adult patientsSurg Endosc17180189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bittner, R 2003Results of the Magdeburg consensus Conference on Surgical hernia RepairZentralbl Chir128549550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Voyles, CR, Hamilton, BJ, Johnson, WD, Kano, N 2002Meta-analyses of laparoscopic inguinal hernia trials favors open hernia repair with preperitoneal mesh prosthesisJ Surg184610Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmedt, CG, Leibl, BJ, Bittner, R 2002Endoscopic inguinal hernia repair in comparison with Shouldice and Lichtenstein repair: a systematic review of randomized trialsDig Surg19511517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fingerhut, A, Millat, B, Bataille, N, Yachouchi, E, Dziri, C, Boudet, MJ, Paul, A 2001Laparoscopic hernia repair in 2000: update of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (E.A.E.S) Consensus Conference in Madrid, June 1994Surg Endosc1510611065PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leibl, BJ, Schmedt, CG, Ulrich, M, Kraft, K, Bittner, R 1999Laparoscopic hernia repair—the facts, but no fashionLangenbeck’s Arch Surg384302311Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung, RS, Rowland, DY 1999Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic vs conventional inguinal hernia repairsSurg Endosc13689694PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheek, CM, Black, NA, Devlin, HB, Kingsnorth, AN, Taylor, RS, Watkin, DFL 1998Groin hernia surgery: a systematic reviewAnn R Coll Surg Engl 80 Suppl1S1S80Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krähenbühl, L, Schäfer, M, Feodorovici, MA, Büchler,  1998Laparoscopic hernia surgery: an overviewDig Surg15158166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Go, PMNYH 1998Overview of randomized, trials in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairSemin Laparosc Surg5238241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macintyre, IMC, Miles, WFA 1995Critical appraisal and current position of laparoscopic hernia repairJR Coll Surg40331336Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacFadyen,  1994Inguinal herniorrhaphy: complications and recurrencesSemin Laparosc Surg1128140 TAPP/TEP vs Lichtenstein repair: randomized trials [Ib]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paganini, AM, Lezoche, E, Carle, F, Carlei, F, Favretti, F, Feliciotto, F, Gesuita, R,  et al. 1998A randomized controlled clinical study of laparoscopic vs open tension-free inguinal hernia repairSurg Endosc12979986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Köninger, JS, Oster, M, Butters, M 1998Leistenhernienversorgung—ein Vergleich gängiger VerfahrenChirurg6913401344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gontarz, W, Wolanski, L, Leksowski, K 1998A comparison of two “tension free” inguinal hernia repair methods—laparoscopic hernioplasty vs anterior mesh technique [Abstract]Br J Surg85101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jess, P, Schultz, K, Bendtzen, K, Nielsen, OH 2000Systemic inflammatory responses during laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair: a randomised prospective stydyEur J Surg166540544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gokalp, A, Inal, M, Maralcan, G, Baskonus, I 2003A prospective randomized study of Lichtenstein open tension-free versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal techniques for inguinal hernia repairActa Chir Belg103502506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Payne, JH, Grininger, LM, Izawa, MT, Podoll, EF, Lindahl, PJ, Balfour, J 1994Laparoscopic or open inguinal herniorrhaphy? A randomized prospective trialArch Surg129973981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Payne, J, Izawa, M, Glen, P, Grininger, L, Podoll, E, Balfour, J 1996Laparoscopic or tension-free inguinal hernia repair? A cost/benefit analysis of 200 prospectively randomized patients [Abstract]Surg Endosc10204Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heikkinen, T, Haukipuro, K, Leppälä, J, Hulkko, A 1997Total cost of laparoscopic and Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repairs: a randomized prospective studySurg Laparosc Endosc715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heikkinen, T, Bringman, S, Ohtonen, P, Kunelis, P, Haukipuro, K, Hulkko, A 2004Five-year outcome of laparoscopic and Lichtenstein hernioplastiesSurg Laparosc Endosc18518522Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andersson, B, Hallén, M, Leveau, P, Bergenfelz, A, Westerdahl, J 2003Laparoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair versus open mesh repair: a prospective randomized controlled trialSurgery133464472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Merello, J, Guerra, AG, Madriz, J, Guerra, GG 1997Laparoscopic TEP versus open Lichtenstein hernia repair: randomized trial [Abstract]Surg Endosc11545Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Colak, T, Tamer, A, Arzu, K, Suha, A 2003Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach with open mesh repair in inguinal herniaSurg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech13191195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lal, P, Kajla, RK, Chander, J, Saha, R, Ramteke, VK 2003Randomized controlled study of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal vs open Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repairSurg Endosc17850856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mahon, D, Decadt, B, Rhodes, M 2003Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic (transabdominal preperitoneal) versus open (mesh) repair for bilateral and recurrent inguinal herniaSurg Endosc1713861390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Filipi, CJ, Gaston-Johansson, F, McBride, PJ, Murayama, K, Gerhardt, J, Cornet, DA, Lund, RJ,  et al. 1996An assessment of pain and return to normal activity: laparoscopic herniorrhaphy vs open tension-free Lichtenstein repairSurg Endosc10983986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heikkinen, TJ, Haukipuro, K, Hulkko, A 1998A cost and outcome comparison between laparoscopic and Lichtenstein hernia operations in a day-case unit: a randomized prospective studySurg Endosc1211991203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heikkinen, TJ, Haukipuro, K, Koivukangas, P, Hulkko, A 1998A prospective randomized outcome and cost comparison of totally extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty versus Lichtenstein hernia operation among employed patientsSurg Laparosc Endosc5338344Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sarli, L, Pietra, N, Choua, O, Costi, R, Thenasseril, B, Giunta, A 1997Confronto prospettico randomizzato tra ernioplastica laparoscopica ed ernioplastica tension-free secondo LichtensteinActa Biomed Ateneo Parmese68510Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sarli, L, Villa, F, Marchesi, F 2001Hernioplasty and simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study of open tension-free versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairSurgery129530536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sarli, L, lusco, DR, Sansebastiano, G, Costi, R 2001Simultaneous repair of bilateral inguinal hernias: a prospective, randomized study of open, tension-free versus laparoscopic approachSurg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech11262267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Picchio, M, Lombardi, A, Zolovkins, A, Mihelsons, M, La Torre, G 1999Tension-free laparoscopic and open hernia repair: randomized controlled trial of early resultsWorld J Surg2310041009PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bringman, S, Ramel, S, Heikkinen, TJ, Englund, T, Westman, B, Anderberg, B 2003Tension-free inguinal hernia repair: TEP versus mesh-plug versus Lichtenstein. A prospective randomized controlled trialAnn Surg237142147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Neumayer, L, Giobbie-Hurder, A, Jonasson, O, Fitzgibbons, R, Dunlop, D, Gibbs, J, Reda, D,  et al. 2004Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal herniaN Engl J Med35018191827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wellwood, J, Sculpher, MJ, Stoker, D, Nicholls, GJ, Geddes, C, Whitehead, A, Singh, R,  et al. 1998Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open repair for inguinal hernia: outcome and costBMJ317103110,Whipps Cross2 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Douek, M, Smith, G, Oshowo, A, Stroker, DL, Wellwood, JM 2003Prospective randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia mesh repair: five year follow upBMJ32610121013 TAPP/TEP vs non-Lichtenstein open mesh repair [Ib]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zieren, J, Zieren, HU, Jacobi, CA, Wenger, FA, Müller, JM 1998Prospective randomized study comparing laparoscopic and open tension-free inguinal hernia repair with Shouldice’s operationAm J Surg175330333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bostanci, BE, Tetik, C, Ozer, S, Ozden, A 1998Posterior approaches in groin hernia repair with prosthesis: open or closedActa Chir Belg98241244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Suter, M, Martinet, O, Spertini, F 2002Reduced acute phase response after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal bilateral hernia repair compared to open repair with the Stoppa procedureSurg Endosc1612141219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wright, D, Paterson, C, Scott, N, Hair, A, O’Dwyer, PJ 2002Five-year follow-up of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open groin hernia repair: a randomized controlled trialAnn Surg235333337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group2001Cost-utility analysis of open versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: results from a multicentre randomized clinical trialBr J Surg88653661Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Scott, NW, Grant, AM, Ross, SJ, Smith, A, Macintyre, IMC, O’Dwyer, PJ 2000Patient-assessed outcome up to three months in a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic with open groin hernia repairHernia47379Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group1999Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: a randomized comparisonLancet354185190Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wright, DM, Hall, MG, Paterson, CR, O’Dwyer, PJ 1999A randomized comparison of driver reaction time after open and endoscopic tension-free inguinal hernia repairSurg Endosc13332334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wright, DM, Kennedy, A, Baxter, JN, Fullarton, GM, Fife, LM, Sunderland, GT 1996Early outcome after open versus extraperitoneal endoscopic tension-free hernioplasty: a randomizedSurgery119552557PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Beets, GL, Dirksen, CD, Go, PMNYH, Geisler, FEA, Baeten, CGMI, Kootstra, G 1999Open or laparoseopic preperitoneal mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia?Surg Endosc13323327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Champault, G, Barrat, C, Catheline, JM, Rizk, N 1998Hernies de I’aine: resultants à 4 ans de deux études prospectives randomisées comparant les opérations de Shouldice et de Stoppa à I’abord laparoscopique totalement pré-péritiónealAnn Chir52132136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Champault, GG, Rizk, N, Catheline, JM, Turner, R, Boutelier, P 1997Inguinal hernia repair. Totally preperitoneal laparoscopic approach versus stoppa operation: randomized trial of 100 casesSurg Laparosc Endosc7445450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Champault, G, Rizk, N, Catheline, JM, Riskalla, H, Boutelier, P 1996Groin hernia: pre-peritoneal laparoscopic sugery versus open (Stoppa) procedure. Prospective randomized trial: 100 casesJ Chir (Paris)133274280Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Khoury, N 1998A randomized prospective controlled trial of laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair and mesh-plug hernioplasty: a study of 315 casesJ Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A8367372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Johansson, B, Hallerbäck, B, Glise, H, Anesten, B, Smedberg, S, Román, J 1999Laparoscopic versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study)Ann Surg230225231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Aitola, P, Airo, I, Matikainen, M 1998Laparoscopic versus open preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized trialAnn Chir Gynaecol872225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Simmermacher, RKJ, van Duyn, EB, Clevers, GJ, de Vries, LS, van Vroonhoven, JMV 2000Preperitoneal mesh in groin hernia surgery: a randomized clinical trial emphasizing the surgical aspects of preperitoneal placement via a laparoscopic (TEP) or grid-iron (Ugahary) approachHernia4296298Excluded studies, TAPP/TEP vs open mesh repairGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ramon, JM, Carulla, X, Hidalgo, JM 1998Study of quality of life in relation with the health after surgery of the endoscopic inguinal hernia vs conventional [Abstract]Br J Surg85 Suppl II18Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vatansev, C, Belviranli, M, Aksoy, F, Tuncer, S, Sahin, M, Karahan, O 2002The effects of different hernia repair methods on postoperative pain medication and CRP levelsSurg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech12243246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kozol, R, Lange, PM, Kosir, M, Beleski, K, Mason, K, Tennenberg, S, Kubinec, SM,  et al. 1997A prospective, randomized study of open vs laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an assessment of postoperative painArch Surg132292295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Barkun, JS, Keyser, EJ, Wexler, MJ, Fried, GM, Hinchey, EJ, Fernandez, M, Meakins, JL 1999Short-term outcomes in open vs. laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: confunding impact of workers compensation on convalescenceJ Gastrointest Surg3575582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Barkun, JS, Wexler, MJ, Hinchey, EJ, Thibeault, D, Meakins, JL 1995Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniorrhayphy: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trialSurgery118703710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Unzunköy, A, Cosun, A, Akinici, OF, Kocyigit, A 2000Systemic stress responses after laparoscopic or open hernia repairEur J Surg166467471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pavlidis, TE, Atmatzidis, KS, Lazaridis, CN, Papaziogas, BT, Makris, JG, Papaziogas, TB 2002Comparison between modern mesh and conventional mesh methods of inguinal hernia repairMinerva Chir57712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Catani, M, Milito, R, Spaziani, E, Chiaretti, M, Manilli, G, Capitano, S, Di Filippo, A,  et al. 2003Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair “IPOM” vs “open tension free” preliminary results of a prospectiveMinerva Chir58783789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vogt,  1995Preliminany results of a prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic onlay versus conventional inguinal herniorrhaphyAm J Surg1698490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Amid, PK 2004Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty: its inception, evolution, and principlesHernia817PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bittner, R, Sauerland, S, Schmedt, CG 2004Comparison of endoscopic techniques versus Shouldice and other open non mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials... (submitted) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bittner, R, Schmedt, C-G, Schwarz, J, Kraft, K, Leibl, BJ 2002Laparoscopic transperitoneal procedure for routine repair of groin herniaBr J Surg8910621066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bobrzynski, A, Budzynski, A, Biesiada, Z, Kowalczyk, M, Lubikowski, J, Sienko, J 2001Experience—the key factor in successful laparoscopic total extraperitoneal and transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repairHernia58083PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Feliu-Pala, X, Martín-Gómez, M, Morales-Conde, S, Fernández-Sallent, E 2001The impact of the surgeon’s experience on the results of laparoscopic hernia repairSurg Endosc1514671470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jensen, P, Mikkelsen, T, Kehlet, H 2002Postherniorrhaphy urinary retension — effect of local, regional, and general anesthesia: a reviewReg Anesth Pain Med27612617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Leibl, BJ, Schmedt, CG, Kraft, K, Ulrich, M, Bittner, R 2000Recurrence after endoscopic transperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP): causes, reparative technique, and results of the reoperationJ Am Coll Surg190651655PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lichtenstein, IL, Shulman, AG, Amid, PK, Montllor, MM 1989The tension free hernioplastyAm J Surg157188193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Liem, MS, Duyn, EB, Graaf, Y, Vroonhoven, TJ, Coala Trial Group,  2003Recurrences after conventional anterior and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized comparisonAnn Surg237136141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lowham, AS, Filipi, CJ, Fitzgibbons, RJ,Jr, Stoppa, R, Wantz, GE, Felix, EL, Crafton, WB 1997Mechanisms of hernia recurrence after preperitoneal mesh repair: traditional and laparoscopicAnn Surg225422431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Moher, D, Cook, DJ, Eastwood, S, Olkin, I, Rennie, D, Stroup, DF 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Qualitiy of Reporting of Meta-analysesLancet35418961900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Occelli, G, Barrat, C, Catheline, JM, Voreux, JP, Cueto-Rozon, R, Champault, G 2000Laparoscopic treatment of inguinal hernias: prospective evaluation of 757 cases treated by a totally extraperitoneal routeHernia48184Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Scheidbach, H, Tamme, C, Tannapfel, A, Lippert, H, Köckerling, F 2004In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty: an experimental study in pigsSurg Endosc18211220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schmedt, CG, Leibl, BJ, Bittner, R 2002Access-related complications in laparoscopic surgery: tips and tricks to avoid trocar complicationsChirurg73863876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tamme, C, Scheidbach, H, Hampe, C, Schneider, C, Köckerling, F 2003Totally extraperitoneal endoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TEP)Surg Endosc17190195PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Biochemical and Experimental Division, Medical FacultyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.Department of General SurgeryMarienhospital StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations