, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 311–324 | Cite as

Evaluation of the contralateral inguinal ring in clinically unilateral inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • P. J. Kokorowski
  • H.-H. S. Wang
  • J. C. Routh
  • K. C. Hubert
  • C. P. Nelson



The management of the contralateral inguinal canal in children with clinical unilateral inguinal hernia is controversial. Our objective was to systematically review the literature regarding management of the contralateral inguinal canal.


We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (1940–2011) using ‘hernia’ and ‘inguinal’ and either ‘pediatric,’ ‘infant,’ or ‘child,’ to identify studies of pediatric (age ≤21 years) patients with inguinal hernia. Among clinical unilateral hernia patients, we assessed the number of cases with contralateral patent processus (CPP) and incidence of subsequent clinical metachronous contralateral hernia (MCH). We evaluated three strategies for contralateral management: expectant management, laparoscopic evaluation or pre-operative ultrasound. Pooled estimates of MCH or CPP were generated with random effects by study when heterogeneity was found (I2 > 50 %, or Cochrane’s Q p ≥ 0.10). 


We identified 2,477 non-duplicated studies, 129 of which met our inclusion criteria and had sufficient information for quantitative analysis. The pooled incidence of MCH after open unilateral repair was 7.3 % (95 % CI 6.5–8.1 %). Laparoscopic examination identified CPP in 30 % (95 % CI 26–34 %). Lower age was associated with higher incidence of CPP (p < 0.01). The incidence of MCH after a negative laparoscopic evaluation was 0.9 % (95 % CI 0.5–1.3 %). Significant heterogeneity was found in studies and pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution.


The literature suggests that laparoscopically identified CPP is a poor indicator of future contralateral hernia. Almost a third of patients will have a CPP, while less than one in 10 will develop MCH when managed expectantly. Performing contralateral hernia repair in patients with CPP results in overtreatment in roughly 2 out of 3 patients.


Inguinal Hernia Pediatric Laparoscopy 


  1. 1.
    Mollen KP, Kane TD (2007) Inguinal hernia: what we have learned from laparoscopic evaluation of the contralateral side. Curr Opin Pediatr 19(3):344–348. doi:10.1097/MOP.0b013e3281574597 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alzahem A (2011) Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniotomy in infants and children: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int. doi:10.1007/s00383-010-2840-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miltenburg DM, Nuchtern JG, Jaksic T, Kozinetz CA, Brandt ML (1997) Meta-analysis of the risk of metachronous hernia in infants and children. Am J Surg 174(6):741–744 S0002961097001827 [pii]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ron O, Eaton S, Pierro A (2007) Systematic review of the risk of developing a metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia in children. Br J Surg 94(7):804–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandt ML (2008) Pediatric Hernias. Surg Clin North Am 88(1):27–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miltenburg DM, Nuchtern JG, Jaksic T, Kozinetiz C, Brandt ML (1998) Laparoscopic evaluation of the pediatric inguinal hernia–a meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 33(6):874–879 S0022-3468(98)90664-9 [pii]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phelps S, Agrawal M (1997) Morbidity after neonatal inguinal herniotomy. J Pediatr Surg 32(3):445–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hasan NU (1993) Management of inguinal hernia of childhood as practiced in Karachi, Pakistan. Pediatric Surg Int 8(6):462–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGregor DB, Halverson K, McVay CB (1980) The unilateral pediatric inguinal hernia: should the contralateral side be explored? J Pediatr Surg 15(3):313–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Altman DGEMSGD (2001) Systematic reviews in healthcare: meta analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kervancioglu R, Bayram MM, Ertaskin I, Ozkur A (2000) Ultrasonographic evaluation of bilateral groins in children with unilateral inguinal hernia. Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden: 1987) 41(6):653–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chou TY, Chu CC, Diau GY, Wu CJ, Gueng MK (1996) Inguinal hernia in children: uS versus exploratory surgery and intraoperative contralateral laparoscopy. Radiology 201(2):385–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen KC, Chu CC, Chou TY, Wu CJ (1998) Ultrasonography for inguinal hernias in boys. J Pediatr Surg 33(12):1784–1787. ([pii]:S0022-3468(98)90284-6)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hata S, Takahashi Y, Nakamura T, Suzuki R, Kitada M, Shimano T (2004) Preoperative sonographic evaluation is a useful method of detecting contralateral patent processus vaginalis in pediatric patients with unilateral inguinal hernia. J Pediatr Surg 39(9):1396–1399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lawrenz K, Hollman AS, Carachi R, Cacciaguerra S (1994) Ultrasound assessment of the contralateral groin in infants with unilateral inguinal hernia. Clin Radiol 49(8):546–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rothenberg RE, Barnett T (1955) Bilateral herniotomy in infants and children. Surgery 37(6):947–950PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiener ES, Touloukian RJ, Rodgers BM, Grosfeld JL, Smith EI, Ziegler MM, Coran AG (1996) Hernia survey of the section on surgery of the American Academy of Pediatrics. J Pediatr Surg 31(8):1166–1169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maddox MM, Smith DP (2008) A long-term prospective analysis of pediatric unilateral inguinal hernias: should laparoscopy or anything else influence the management of the contralateral side? J Pediatric Urol 4(2):141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golka T, Holschneider AM, Fischer R, Blessing MH (1989) Pathogenicity of the open processus vaginalis peritonei. Zeitschrift f?r Kinderchirurgie : organ der Deutschen, der Schweizerischen und der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft f?r Kinderchirurgie = Surgery in infancy and childhood 44 (2):88–90Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chin T, Liu C, Wei C (1995) The morphology of the contralateral internal inguinal rings is age-dependent in children with unilateral inguinal hernia. J Pediatr Surg 30(12):1663–1665 0022-3468(95)90446-8 [pii]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holcomb GW, 3rd, Miller KA, Chaignaud BE, Shew SB, Ostlie DJ (2004) The parental perspective regarding the contralateral inguinal region in a child with a known unilateral inguinal hernia. J Pediatr Surg 39 (3):480–482; discussion 480–482. S0022346803008765 [pii]Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tiryaki T, Baskin D, Bulut M (1998) Operative complications of hernia repair in childhood. Pediatr Surg Int 13(2–3):160–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leung WYM, Poon M, Fan TW, Siu KW, Chung KW, Kwok WK, Kwok CH (1999) Testicular volume of boys after inguinal herniotomy: combined clinical and radiological follow-up. Pediatr Surg Int 15(1):40–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koot VCM, De Jong JR, Van Der Zee DC, Dik P (1998) Subtotal cystectomy as a complication of infant hernia repair. Eur J Surg 164(11):873–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Kokorowski
    • 1
  • H.-H. S. Wang
    • 2
  • J. C. Routh
    • 2
  • K. C. Hubert
    • 3
  • C. P. Nelson
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Urology, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Institute of UrologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Division of Urologic SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyChildren’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations