Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Day case laparoscopic herniorraphy

A NICE procedure with a long learning curve

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate day case laparoscopic herniorraphy (LH) and to ascertain the impact of trainee surgeons on its performance.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of ambulatory laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal herniorraphies performed in a dedicated day surgical unit between March 1996 and October 2003.

Results

A total of 840 herniorraphies were performed in 706 consecutive patients. Surgery was performed by 15 higher surgical trainees and three consultant surgeons. The mean operating times for trainees were longer for unilateral (48.4 ± 0.98 vs 41.4 ± 0.87 min, p < 0.05) and bilateral (69.0 ± 3.24 vs 53.0 ± 1.68 min, p < 0.05) repairs than for consultants. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that after an experience of 40 procedures, trainee times approached those of the consultants (41.39 ± 1.17 vs 41.4 ± 0.87 min, p= 0.31). LH repair was well tolerated and associated with minimal postoperative pain and nausea. Mean pain scores postoperatively and at 24 h were 2.69 ± 0.11 and 2.07 ± 0.09, respectively. Mean nausea scores postoperatively and at 24 h were 0.34 ± 0.06 and 0.22 ± 0.06, respectively. Ninety-three percent of patients (n = 657) were discharged within 8 h. There were two conversions to an open procedure (0.1%) and two significant complications (0.1%). Ninety-five percent of patients who responded to our questionnaire (n = 398/419) were satisfied with surgery and would undergo day case laparoscopic herniorraphy again.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic herniorraphy is a safe technique suitable for day case surgery. Operator experience dictates duration of surgery. Trainees’ operating times approach those of consultants after 40 procedures. Prolonged operating times and increased cost are not justifiable reasons for not recommending LH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anonymous (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1

  2. Bloor K, Fremantle N, et al. (2003) Impact of NICE guidelines on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. Br Med J 326: 578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks DC, Rattner DW, et al. (1994) A prospective comparison of transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair versus traditional open hernia repair in a university setting. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4: 247–253

    Google Scholar 

  4. Choudary RK, Hasan AMF (2003) NICE guidelines on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia: guidelines are less clinical excellence than hindrance. Br Med J 326: 1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Edward CC, Bailey RW (2000) Laparoscopic hernia repair: the learning curve. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percut Tech 10: 149–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans DS (2002) Laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) repair of groin hernia: one surgeon’s experience of a developing technique: Hunterian lecture. Ann R Coll Surg 84: 393–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Feliu-Pala X, Martin-Gomez M, et al. (2001) The impact of the surgeon’s experience on the results of laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Endosc 15: 1467–1470

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Hulkko A (1998) A cost and outcome comparison between laparoscopic and Lichtenstein hernia operations in a day case unit. A randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 12: 1199–1203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Johansson B, Hallerback B, et al. (1999) Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicentre trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Ann Surg 230: 225–231

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Juul P, Christensen K (1999) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 86: 316–319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kald A, Anderberg B (1997) Surgical outcome and cost-minimization analyses of laparoscopic and open hernia repair: a randomized prospective trial with one year follow up. Eur J Surg 163: 505–510

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kozol R, Lange PM, et al. (1997) A prospective randomized study of open vs laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. An assessment of postoperative pain. Arch Surg 132: 292–295

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, et al. (1996) An economic evaluation of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. J Public Health Med 18: 41–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Liem MSL, Van DGY, et al. (1997) A randomized comparison of physical performance following laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 84: 64–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McCloud JM, Evans DS (2003) Day case laparoscopic hernia repair in a single unit. Surg Endosc 17: 491–493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group (1999) Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: a randomized comparison. Lancet 354: 185–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Motson R (2002) Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy? Br Med J 324: 1092–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001) Guidance on the use of laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 18.

  19. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Appraisal consultation document: laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. http://www.nice.org.uk

    Google Scholar 

  20. Quilici PJ, Greaney EM, Anderson S (2000) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair; optimal technical variations and results in 1700 cases. Am Surg 66: 848–852

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ramshaw B, Shuler FW, Jones HB (2001) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: lessons learned after 1224 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 15: 50–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stoker DL, Speilgelhalter DJ, et al. (1994) Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: randomized prospective trial. Lancet 343: 1243–1245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wellwood J, Sculpher MJ, et al. (1998) Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for inguinal hernia; outcome and cost. Br Med J 317: 103–110

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Oesophagogastric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hull Royal Infirmary, Anlaby Road, Kingston upon Hull, HU3 2JZ, UK

    M. Lim, C. J. O’Boyle, C. M. S. Royston & P. C. Sedman

Authors
  1. M. Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. J. O’Boyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. M. S. Royston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. C. Sedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. J. O’Boyle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lim, M., O’Boyle, C.J., Royston, C.M.S. et al. Day case laparoscopic herniorraphy. Surg Endosc 20, 1453–1459 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2265-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2265-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation