Hernia

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 731–744 | Cite as

Potential benefits of single-port compared to multiport laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy: a prospective randomized controlled study

  • H. Tran
  • I. Turingan
  • K. Tran
  • M. Zajkowska
  • V. Lam
  • W. Hawthorne
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Multiple prospective studies have confirmed safety and efficacy of laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy with single-port compared to multiport surgery. This prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to assess safety, efficacy and potential benefits of single-port total extraperitoneal inguinal herniorraphy beyond the learning curve.

Methods

All referred patients with inguinal/femoral hernias were enrolled from December 2011 to February 2013. Exclusion criteria included workers compensation cases. Identical balloon dissector, light-weight mesh and non-absorbable tacks were used in all cases. For single-port cases Triport™ was used while structural balloon trocar/inflation bulb for multiport cases. Results were analyzed with IBM® SPSS® version 22 for Windows.

Results

Participation rate was 100 % with 157 inguinal/femoral hernias in 100 patients: 51 randomized to single-port and 49 to multiport group. There was no conversion to open surgery/need for additional ports. There were no statistical differences between single-port and multiport groups with respect to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, preoperative pain, hernia defect sizes and length of hospital stay. Operation times were equivalent for single-port and multiport 60.0 vs 61.0 min, P = 0.23, respectively. Significantly, single-port patients ingested fewer pain killers: 6 tablets vs 14 Dextropropoxyphene tablets, P < 0.001, experienced less pain (visual analog scores) on day 1 and 7 post-op op: 2.5 and 0, P < 0.001 compared to 4.5 and 2.5, P < 0.001, respectively, returned to work/normal physical activities 7 days quicker: 7.0 vs 14.0, P < 0.001 and had higher cosmetic scar scores at 6-week follow-up: 24 vs 21, P < 0.001, compared to multiport patients. There were no mortalities, morbidities or recurrences after follow-up of 6–21 months.

Conclusions

Compared to multiport, single-port laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal herniorraphy, when performed by a high-volume and highly dedicated hernia surgeon, resulted in significantly reduced postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, quicker return to work/normal activities, improved cosmesis, and equivalent safety and efficacy.

Keywords

Single-port Randomized controlled trial Inguinal hernia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Mai Tran for assistance with the preparation of the manuscript and Karen Byth, PhD (Statistics), PhD (Mathematics) for assistance with statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest

HT declares no conflict of interest or financial disclosure. IT declares no conflict of interest or financial disclosure. KT declares no conflict of interest or financial disclosure. MZ declares no conflict of interest or financial disclosure. VL declares no conflict of interest or financial disclosure. WH declares no conflict of interest or financial disclosure.

References

  1. 1.
    Reynolds W (2001) The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 5(1):89–94PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cushieri A, Dubois F, Mouiel J, Mouret P, Becker H, Buess G, Trede M, Troidl H (1991) The European experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161:385–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ger R, Monroe K, Duvivier R, Mishrick A (1990) Management of indirect inguinal hernias by laparoscopic closure of the next of the sac. Am J Surg 159(4):370–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neumayer LA, Gawande AA, Wang J, Giobbie-Hurder A, Itani KM, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Reda D, Jonasson O, CSP #456 Investigators (2005) Proficiency of surgeons in inguinal hernia repair: effect of experience and age. Ann Surg 242(3):344–348PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noguera JF, Cuadrado A, Dolz C, Olea JM, Garcίa JC (2012) Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hybrid natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) (NCT00835250). Surg Endosc 26(12):3435–3441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Solomon D, Shariff AH, Silasi DA, Duffy AJ, Bell RL, Roberts KE (2012) Transvaginal cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 26(10):283–287Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Autorino R, Yakoubi R, White WM, Gettman M, De Sio M, Quattrone C, Di Palma C, Izzo A, Correia-Pinto J, Kaouk JH, Lima E (2013) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. BJU Int 111(1):11–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu L, Chiu PW, Reddy N, Ho LK, Kitano S, Seo DW, Tajiri H, APNOTES Working Group (2013) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for clinical management of intra-abdominal diseases. Dig Endosc 25(6):565–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cugura JF, Kirac I, Kulis T, Sremac M, Ledinsky M, Beslin MB (2012) Comparison of single incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: initial experience. J Endourol 26(1):63–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tran HM (2011) Safety and efficacy of single incision laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. JSLS 15(1):47–52PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung SD, Huang CY, Wang SM, Hung SF, Tsai YC, Chueh SC, Yu HJ (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site totally extraperitoneal adult inguinal hernia repair: initial 100 patients. Surg Endosc 25(11):3579–3583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soon Y, Yip E, Onida S, Mangat H (2012) Single-port hernia repair: a prospective cohort of 102 patients. Hernia 16(4):393–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phillips MS, Marks JM, Roberts K, Tacchino R, Onders R, DeNoto G, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Paraskeva P, Shah S (2012) Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26(5):1296–1303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, Yih PC, Chan OC, Li MK (2011) Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 202(3):254–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J, Guarino S, Santoro A, Parisi A, Noya G, Boselli C (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100(2):191–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pisanu A, Porceddu G, Reccia I, Saba A, Uccheddu A (2012) Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Studies Comparing Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC) and Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16(9):1790–1801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsai YC, Ho CH, Tai HC, Chung SD, Chueh SC (2013) Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 27(12):4684–4692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tran HM (2012) Safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for abdominal wall hernias. JSLS 16(2):242–249PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vasilakis V, Clark CE, Liasis L, Papaconstantinou HT (2013) Noncosmetic benefits of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a case-matched comparison with multiport laparoscopic technique. J Surg Res 180(2):201–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frutos MD, Abrisqueta J, Lujan J, Abellan I, Parrilla P (2013) Randomized prospective study to compare laparoscopic appendectomy versus umbilical single-incision appendectomy. Ann Surg 257(3):413–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tai HC, Lin CD, Chung SD, Chueh SC, Tsai YC, Yang SS (2011) A comparative study of standard versus laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 25:2879–2883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lau H (2005) Fibrin sealant versus mechanical stapling for mesh fixation during endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty: a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 242:670–675PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kalloo AN (2007) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY). 3(3):183–184Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dray X, Kalloo AN (2008) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: first procedures in humans and development strategy. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 32((1 Pt. 1)):8–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shih TY, Wen KC, Lin KY, Uen YH (2012) Transumbilical, single-port, totally extraperitoneal, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using a homemade port and a conventional instrument: an initial experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(2):162–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joseph M, Phillips MR, Farrell TM, Rupp CC (2012) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution. Ann Surg 256(1):1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F, Kafali ME, Sahin M (2012) Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(8):731–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Golkar FC, Ross SB, Sperry S, Vice M, Luberice K, Donn N, Morton C, Hernadez JM, Rosemurgy AS (2012) Patients’ perceptions of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: the cosmetic effect. Am J Surg 204(5):751–761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fuentes MB, Goel R, Lee-Ong AC, Cabrera EB, Lawenko M, Lopez-Gutierrez J, Lomanto D (2013) Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery (SPES) for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia: a critical appraisal of the chopstick repair. Hernia 17(2):217–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cugura JF, Kirac I, Kulis T, Sremac M, Ledinsky M, Beslin MB (2012) Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: initial experience. J Endourol 26:63–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buckley FP 3rd, Vassaur H, Monsivais S, Sharp NE, Jupiter D, Watson R, Eckford J (2014) Comparison of outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy and traditional three-port laparoscopic herniorraphy at a single institution. Surg Endosc 28(1):30–35 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sherwinter DA (2010) Transitioning to single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy. JSLS 14(3):353–357PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weiss HG, Brunner W, Biebl MO, Schirnhofer J, Pimpl K, Mitttermair C, Obrist C, Brunner E, Hell T (2014) Wound complications in 1145 consecutive transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic procedures. Ann Surg 259(1):89–95Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Camps J, Cornet DA, Nguyen NX, Litke BS, Annibali R, Salerno GM (1995) Laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy Results of a multicenter trial. Ann Surg 221(1):3–13PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bittner R, Schmedt CG, Schwarz J, Kraft K, Leible BJ (2002) Laparoscopic transperitoneal procedure for routine repair of groin hernia. Br J Surg 89(8):1062–1066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Tran
    • 1
    • 2
  • I. Turingan
    • 2
  • K. Tran
    • 2
  • M. Zajkowska
    • 2
  • V. Lam
    • 1
  • W. Hawthorne
    • 1
  1. 1.Discipline of Surgery, Sydney Medical SchoolUniversity of Sydney at Westmead HospitalWestmeadAustralia
  2. 2.Sydney Hernia Specialists ClinicSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations