Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 2330–2337 | Cite as

A comparison of outcomes between open and laparoscopic surgical repair of recurrent inguinal hernias

  • Nilay R. Shah
  • Dean J. Mikami
  • Charles Cook
  • Andrei Manilchuk
  • Clayton Hodges
  • Vanchad R. Memark
  • Eric T. Volckmann
  • Clinton R. Hall
  • Steven Steinberg
  • Bradley Needleman
  • Jeffrey W. Hazey
  • W. Scott Melvin
  • Vimal K. Narula



Inguinal hernia recurrence after surgical repair is a major concern. The authors report their experience with open and laparoscopic repair of recurrent inguinal hernias.


After institutional review board approval, a retrospective review was performed with the charts of 197 patients who had undergone surgical repair of recurrent inguinal hernias from January 2000 through August 2009, and the data for 172 patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Surgical variables and clinical outcomes were compared using Student’s t test, the Mann–Whitney U test, chi-square, and Fisher’s exact test as appropriate.


The review showed that 172 patients had undergone either open mesh repair (n = 61) or laparoscopic mesh repair (n = 111) for recurrent inguinal hernias. Postoperative complications were experienced by 8 patients in the open group and 17 patients in laparoscopic group (p = 0.70). Five patients (8.2%) in the open group and four patients (3.6%) in the laparoscopic group had re-recurrent inguinal hernias (p = 0.28). Four patients in the open group (9.5%) and no patients in the laparoscopic group had recurrence during long-term follow-up evaluation (p = 0.046). In the laparoscopic group, 76 patients (68.5%) underwent total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair, and 35 patients (31.5%) had transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair. Postoperative complications were experienced by 13 patients in the TEP group and 4 patients in the TAPP group (p = 0.44). Two patients (2.6%) in the TEP group and two patients (5.7%) in the TAPP group had re-recurrent inguinal hernias (p = 0.59).


This retrospective review showed no statistical difference in the re-recurrence rate between the two techniques during short-term follow-up evaluation. However, the laparoscopic technique had a significantly lower re-recurrence rate than the open technique during long-term follow-up evaluation. Both procedures were comparable in terms of intra- and postoperative complications. Among laparoscopic techniques, TEP and TAPP repair are acceptable methods for the repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. A multicenter prospective randomized control trial is needed to confirm the findings of this study.


Complications Hernia Inguinal Recurrent TAPP TEP Totally extraperitoneal Transabdominal preperitoneal 



Nilay R. Shah, Dean J. Mikami, Charles Cook, Andrei Manilchuk, Clayton Hodges, Vanchad R. Memark, Eric T. Volckmann, Clinton R. Hall, Steven Steinberg, Bradley Needleman, Jeffrey W. Hazey, W. Scott Melvin, and Vimal K. Narula have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Everhart JE, Ruhl CE (2009) Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part I: overall and upper gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology 136:376–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Everhart JE, Ruhl CE (2009) Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part II: lower gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology 136:741–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schaap HM, van de Pavoordt HD, Bast TJ (1992) The preperitoneal approach in the repair of recurrent inguinal hernias. Surg Gynecol Obstet 174:460–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bittner R, Sauerland S, Schmedt CG (2005) Comparison of endoscopic techniques vs Shouldice and other open nonmesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19:605–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aufenacker TJ, de Lange DH, Burg MD, Kuiken BW, Hensen EF, Schoots IG, Gouma DJ, Simons MP (2005) Hernia surgery changes in the Amsterdam region 1994–2001: decrease in operations for recurrent hernia. Hernia 9:46–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L, Malmstrom J, Andersen FH, Wara P, Juul P, Callesen T, Danish Hernia Database C (2001) Quality assessment of 26, 304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 358:1124–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bisgaard T, Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H (2008) Re-recurrence after operation for recurrent inguinal hernia: a nationwide 8-year follow-up study on the role of type of repair. Ann Surg 247:707–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haapaniemi S, Gunnarsson U, Nordin P, Nilsson E (2001) Reoperation after recurrent groin hernia repair. Ann Surg 234:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Junge K, Rosch R, Klinge U, Schwab R, Peiper C, Binnebosel M, Schenten F, Schumpelick V (2006) Risk factors related to recurrence in inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective analysis. Hernia 10:309–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grant AM (2002) Open mesh versus nonmesh repair of groin hernia: meta-analysis of randomised trials based on individual patient data (corrected). Hernia 6:130–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kald A, Nilsson E, Anderberg B, Bragmark M, Engstrom P, Gunnarsson U, Haapaniemi S, Lindhagen J, Nilsson P, Sandblom G, Stubberod A (1998) Reoperation as surrogate end point in hernia surgery: a three year follow-up of 1, 565 herniorrhaphies. Eur J Surg 164:45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jansen PL, Klinge U, Jansen M, Junge K (2009) Risk factors for early recurrence after inguinal hernia repair. BMC Surg 9:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richards SK, Earnshaw JJ (2003) Management of primary and recurrent inguinal hernia by surgeons from the South West of England. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 85:402–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kouhia ST, Huttunen R, Silvasti SO, Heiskanen JT, Ahtola H, Uotila-Nieminen M, Kiviniemi VV, Hakala T (2009) Lichtenstein hernioplasty versus totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernioplasty in treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 249:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richards SK, Vipond MN, Earnshaw JJ (2004) Review of the management of recurrent inguinal hernia. Hernia 8:144–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kald A, Smedh K, Anderberg B (1995) Laparoscopic groin hernia repair: results of 200 consecutive herniorraphies. Br J Surg 82:618–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Topal B, Hourlay P (1997) Totally preperitoneal endoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 84:61–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK, Montllor MM (1989) The tension-free hernioplasty. Am J Surg 157:188–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gianetta E, Cuneo S, Vitale B, Camerini G, Marini P, Stella M (2000) Anterior tension-free repair of recurrent inguinal hernia under local anesthesia: a 7-year experience in a teaching hospital. Ann Surg 231:132–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wellwood J, Sculpher MJ, Stoker D, Nicholls GJ, Geddes C, Whitehead A, Singh R, Spiegelhalter D (1998) Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for inguinal hernia: outcome and cost. BMJ 317:103–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liem MS, van Duyn EB, van der Graaf Y, van Vroonhoven TJ, Coala Trial G (2003) Recurrences after conventional anterior and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized comparison. Ann Surg 237:136–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dedemadi G, Sgourakis G, Karaliotas C, Christofides T, Kouraklis G (2006) Comparison of laparoscopic and open tension-free repair of recurrent inguinal hernias: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 20:1099–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geis WP, Crafton WB, Novak MJ, Malago M (1993) Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: results and technical aspects in 450 consecutive procedures. Surgery 114:765–772 discussion 72–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johansson B, Hallerback B, Glise H, Anesten B, Smedberg S, Roman J (1999) Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Ann Surg 230:225–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barrat C, Surlin V, Bordea A, Champault G (2003) Management of recurrent inguinal hernias: a prospective study of 163 cases. Hernia 7:125–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beets GL, Dirksen CD, Go PM, Geisler FE, Baeten CG, Kootstra G (1999) Open or laparoscopic preperitoneal mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia? A randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 13:323–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Mahajna A (2009) Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: lessons learned from 3, 100 hernia repairs over 15 years. Surg Endosc 23:482–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Koivukangas P, Hulkko A (1998) A prospective randomized outcome and cost comparison of totally extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty versus Lichtenstein hernia operation among employed patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8:338–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lal P, Kajla RK, Chander J, Saha R, Ramteke VK (2003) Randomized controlled study of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal versus open Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 17:850–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sayad P, Ferzli G (1999) Laparoscopic preperitoneal repair of recurrent inguinal hernias. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:127–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kumar S, Nixon SJ, MacIntyre IM (1999) Laparoscopic or Lichtenstein repair for recurrent inguinal hernia: one unit’s experience. J R Coll Surg Edinb 44:301–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feliu X, Jaurrieta E, Vinas X, Macarulla E, Abad JM, Fernandez-Sallent E (2004) Recurrent inguinal hernia: a ten-year review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14:362–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eklund A, Rudberg C, Leijonmarck CE, Rasmussen I, Spangen L, Wickbom G, Wingren U, Montgomery A (2007) Recurrent inguinal hernia: randomized multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein repair. Surg Endosc 21:634–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scheuerlein H, Schiller A, Schneider C, Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Kockerling F (2003) Totally extraperitoneal repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 17:1072–1076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Holt PJ, Praseedom RK (2010) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 97:4–11Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stoppa RE, Rives JL, Warlaumont CR, Palot JP, Verhaeghe PJ, Delattre JF (1984) The use of Dacron in the repair of hernias of the groin. Surg Clin North Am 64:269–285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W, I Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program I (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350:1819–1827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Poobalan AS, Bruce J, King PM, Chambers WA, Krukowski ZH, Smith WC (2001) Chronic pain and quality of life following open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 88:1122–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Massaron S, Bona S, Fumagalli U, Battafarano F, Elmore U, Rosati R (2007) Analysis of postsurgical pain after inguinal hernia repair: a prospective study of 1, 440 operations. Hernia 11:517–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Feliu-Pala X, Martin-Gomez M, Morales-Conde S, Fernandez-Sallent E (2001) The impact of the surgeon’s experience on the results of laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Endosc 15:1467–1470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Motson RW (2002) Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy? BMJ 324:1092–1094PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Neumayer L, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R, Investigators CSP (2006) Laparoscopic hernia in the light of the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 456: more rigorous studies are needed. Surg Endosc 20:1144–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nilay R. Shah
    • 1
  • Dean J. Mikami
    • 1
    • 2
  • Charles Cook
    • 2
  • Andrei Manilchuk
    • 2
  • Clayton Hodges
    • 3
  • Vanchad R. Memark
    • 1
  • Eric T. Volckmann
    • 1
  • Clinton R. Hall
    • 1
  • Steven Steinberg
    • 2
  • Bradley Needleman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeffrey W. Hazey
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. Scott Melvin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vimal K. Narula
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Minimally Invasive SurgeryOhio State University School of Medicine and Public HealthColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryOhio State University School of Medicine and Public HealthColumbusUSA
  3. 3.College of MedicineOhio State University School of Medicine and Public HealthColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations