Advertisement

Hernia

pp 1–6 | Cite as

Could long-term follow-up modify the outcomes after laparoscopic TAPP? A 5-year retrospective cohort study

  • M. E. Peña
  • N. H. Dreifuss
  • F. Schlottmann
  • E. E. SadavaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) has demonstrated multiple benefits. However, long-term results regarding recurrence and quality of life (QoL) are still on debate. We aimed to analyze postoperative outcomes with long-term follow-up after LIHR.

Methods

A consecutive series from December 2012 to May 2017 of laparoscopic TAPP was included. A minimum of 6 months of follow-up was required for inclusion. The sample was divided into two groups, G1: patients with recurrence and G2: patients without recurrence. Patient’s characteristics, operative variables and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A QoL survey (Eura-HS QoL) was performed in the pre- and postoperative period.

Results

A total of 717 laparoscopic TAPP were performed in 443 patients. On univariate analysis, smoking, previous recurrence, mesh size smaller than 12 × 15 cm and surgical teams with less than 30 cases/year showed an increased recurrence rate (p < 0.05). But only smoking and less experienced teams were statistically significant on multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). After a 2-year follow-up, recurrence rate was 1.5%, while it increased to 2.6% (n = 19) at 5-year follow-up. Sixty percent of patients answered QoL survey. Average preoperative scores of pain, activities restriction and aesthetic dissatisfaction improved significantly after 6 months of follow-up in patients without recurrence.

Conclusions

After LIHR, quality of life shows a significant improvement in all parameters. Extending follow-up beyond 2 years after laparoscopic TAPP allows a more accurate assessment of recurrence rate. Smoking and inexperienced teams were significant risk factors for its development.

Keywords

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia Recurrence Risk factors Quality of life 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Drs. Peña, Dreifuss, Schlottmann and Sadava have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclosure.

Ethical approval

The Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study.

Human and animal rights

The study including human participants has been performed in concordance with ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

For this study, formal consent was not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Abbas AE, Abd Ellatif ME, Noaman N et al (2012) Patient-perspective quality of life after laparoscopic and open hernia repair: a controlled randomized trial. Surg Endosc 26(9):2465–2470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trevisonno M, Kaneva P, Watanabe Y et al (2015) A survey of general surgeons regarding laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: practice patterns, barriers, and educational needs. Hernia 19(5):719–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E et al (2015) Update od guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia (International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc 29(2):289–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22(1):1–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracale U, Melillo P, Pignata G et al (2012) Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26(12):3355–3366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pisanu A, Podda M, Saba A et al (2015) Meta-analysis and review of prospective randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein techniques in recurrent inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 19(3):355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scheuermann U, Niebisch S, Lyros O et al (2017) Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 17(1):55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eklund AS, Montgomery AK, Rasmussen IC et al (2009) Low recurrence rate after laparoscopic (TEP) and open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair: a randomized, multicenter trial with 5-year follow-up. Ann Surg 240(1):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM et al (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001785Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andresen K, Friis-Andersen H, Rosenberg J (2016) Laparoscopic repair of primary inguinal hernia performed in public hospitals or low-volume centers have increased risk of reoperation for recurrence. Surg Innov 23(2):142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siddaiah Subramanya M, Ashrafi D, Memon B et al (2018) Causes of recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 22:975–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barbaro A, Kanhere H, Bessell J et al (2017) Laparoscopic extraperitoneal repair versus open inguinal hernia repair: 20-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Hernia 21(5):723–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schjöth-Inversen L, Refsun A, Brudvik KW (2017) Factors associated with hernia recurrence after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia: 2-year protective cohort study. Hernia 21(5):729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jalil O, Rowlands C, Ruddle A et al (2015) Medium-term recurrence and quality of life assessment using the hernia-specific Carolinas Comfort Scale Following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 25(6):477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bansal VK, Misra MC, Babu D et al (2013) A prospective, randomized comparison of long-term outcomes: chronic groin pain and quality of life following totally extraperitoneal (TEP) and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 27(7):2373–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muysoms FE, Vanlander A, Ceulemans R et al (2016) A prospective, multicenter, observational study on quality of life after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with ProGrip laparoscopic, self-fixating mesh according to the European Registry for Abdominal Wall Hernias Quality of Life Instrument. Surgery 160(5):1344–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L et al (2013) A meta-analysis examining the use of tacker mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 206(1):103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sajid MS, Kalra L, Parampalli U et al (2013) A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of lightweight mesh against heavyweight mesh in influencing the incidence of chronic groin pain following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 205(6):726–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    El-Dhuwaib Y, Corless D, Emmett C et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: a longitudinal cohort study. Surg Endosc 27(3):936–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liem MS, van Duyn EB, van der Graaf Y et al (2003) Recurrences after conventional anterior and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized comparison. Ann Surg 237(1):136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eklund AS, Montgomery AK, Rasmussen IC et al (2009) Low recurrence rate after laparoscopic (TEP) and open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair: a randomized, multicenter trial with 5-year follow-up. Ann Surg 249(1):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van den Heuvel B, van Jarwaarde JA, Wichers P et al (2015) Follow-up after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, can it be done by phone? A prospective study in 300 patients, the PINQ-PHONE. Surg Endosc 29(11):3292–3297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R (2005) Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19(2):188–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheuermann U, Niebisch S, Lyros O et al (2017) Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 17(1):55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Neumayer LA, Gawande AA, Wang J et al (2005) Proficiency of surgeons in inguinal hernia repair: effect of experience and age. Ann Surg 242(3):344–348Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feliu-Pala X, Martin-Gomez M, Morales-Conde S et al (2001) The impact of the surgeon’s experience on the results of laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Endosc 15(12):1467–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sorensen LT, Friis E, Jorgensen T et al (2002) Smoking is a risk factor for recurrence of groin hernia. World J Surg 26:397–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sorensen LT (2012) Wound healing and infection on surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg 147(4):373–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sorensen LT (2012) Wound healing and infection in surgery: the pathophysiological impact of smoking, smoking cessation, and nicotine replacement therapy: a systematic review. Ann Surg 255(6):1069–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Abdominal Wall Surgery, Department of General SurgeryHospital Alemán of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations