Laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) surgery for incarcerated inguinal hernia repair
- 162 Downloads
This series was aimed to analyze feasibility, safety and postoperative quality of life of trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair in incarcerated hernia; the rationale was a safe hernia reduction, more accurate abdomen exploration, diagnosis and treatment of contralateral unknown hernia.
With a minimum follow-up of 30 months, 20 urgent incarcerated inguinal hernia patients were submitted to TAPP. Signs of strangulation, peritonitis and major comorbidity were exclusion criteria. Feasibility and safety were evaluated by ability to hernia reduction, conversion rate, operative time, perioperative mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, prosthesis infection and recurrence. Finally, quality of life was assessed by acute and chronic pain score, recovery of normal activities, return to work and patients’ satisfaction survey.
Under vision sac reduction was always achieved, incision of internal ring during the reduction manoeuvre was necessary in 40% of pts, intraoperative complications, conversions or perioperative mortality were not observed. In one case (5%) partial omentectomy was necessary. Contralateral hernia was diagnosed and repaired in 20%. Median operative time was 81.3 min, postoperative minor complications were recorded in 5 patients (25%), median in hospital stay was 2 days. After a median follow-up of 39 months, 1 patient recurred (5%). Acute pain, was scored 3 as median value (range 1–5), only one patient scored 2 as chronic pain during follow-up.
Laparoscopic approach for incarcerated inguinal hernia repair is not the standard treatment. In our experience, with the limit of a single-surgeon series, selected patients showed satisfactory results in terms of feasibility, safety, postoperative quality of life and patients’ satisfaction were observed. Few series about this topic were published. More prospective trials are needed.
KeywordsInguinal Hernia Laparoscopic repair
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Approval from the institution review board was not required for this study.
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with animal performed by any of the authors.
All human patients gave us a written informed consent.
- 6.Mahon D, Decadt B, Rhodes M (2003) Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic (transabdominal preperitoneal) vs open (mesh) repair for bilateral and recurrent inguinal hernia. SurgEndosc 17:1386–1390Google Scholar
- 9.Simons MP, Aufena T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, de Lange D, Fortelny R, Heikkinen T, Kingsnorth A, Kukleta J, Morales-Conde S, Nordin P, Schumpelick V, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, Weber G, Miserez M (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines on the Treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13(4):343–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ishihara T, Kubota K, Eda N, Ishibashi S, Harguchi Y (1996) Laparoscopic approach to incarcerated inguinal hernia. SrgEndosc 10:1111–1113Google Scholar
- 14.Picchio M, DeAngelis F, Zazza S, Di Filippo A, Mancini R, Pattaro G, Stipa F, OluseyeAdisa A, Marino G, Spaziani E (2012) Drain after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized multicentre controller trial.SurgEndosc26(10):2817–2822Google Scholar
- 26.Watson SD, Saye W, Hollier PA (1993) Combined laparoscopic incarcerated herniorrhaphy and small bowel resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3:106–108Google Scholar
- 27.Lavonius MI, Ovaka J (2000) Laparoscopy in the evaluation of the incarcerated mass in groin Hernia. Surg Laparosc Endosc 14:488–489Google Scholar