Systemic inflammatory response after Kugel versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: a prospective randomized trial
- 178 Downloads
Kugel repair, a minimally invasive technique, has become an alternative to laparoscopic groin hernia repair, but the technique has not been adequately evaluated by assessment of objective parameters. A prospective randomized clinical study was carried out to compare the systemic inflammatory response to surgical trauma and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent groin hernia repair by the Kugel and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic methods.
Forty consecutive patients admitted for unilateral groin hernia were randomized to Kugel (n = 20) or TEP (n = 20) repair under general anesthesia. Operation time, length of hospital stay, pain severity, time to return to normal activities, cost, and systemic inflammatory and hormone responses to surgical trauma were compared.
There were no significant between-group differences in duration of operation, length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activities, or mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score (p > 0.05 for each). Serum cortisol, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and interleukin (IL)-6 concentrations before surgery, and 1 and 24 h after surgery, did not differ significantly in the two groups (p > 0.05). There were no recurrences or complications during follow-up. Cost per patient was US $546 lower in the Kugel group.
Kugel herniorrhaphy is a minimally invasive technique that offers all the advantages of TEP and is more cost-effective.
KeywordsGroin hernia Systemic inflammatory response Kugel Laparoscopy
- 9.McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, et al (2003) EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001785Google Scholar
- 14.Caldas JP, Marba ST, Blotta MH et al (2008) Accuracy of white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha for diagnosing late neonatal sepsis. J Pediatr (Rio J) 84(6):536–542Google Scholar