Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy and traditional three-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy at a single institution

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Evidence in the literature regarding the potential of single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) inguinal herniorrhaphy currently is limited. A retrospective comparison of SILS and traditional multiport laparoscopic (MP) inguinal hernia repair was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of the minimally invasive laparoscopic technique.

Methods

All laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs performed by three surgeons at a single institution during 4 years were reviewed. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and hernia location (uni- or bilateral), in addition to bivariate and multivariate analyses of surgical technique and outcomes including operative times, conversions, and complications.

Results

The study compared 129 patients who underwent SILS inguinal hernia repair and 76 patients who underwent MP inguinal hernia repair. The cases included 190 men (92.68 %) with a mean age of 55.36 ± 18.01 years (range, 8–86 years) and a mean BMI of 26.49 ± 4.33 kg/m2 (range, 17.3–41.7 kg/m2). These variables did not differ significantly between the SILS and MP cohorts. The average operative times for the SILS and MP unilateral cases were respectively 57.51 and 66.96 min. For the bilateral cases, the average operative times were 81.07 min for SILS and 81.38 min for MP. A multivariate analysis using surgical approach, BMI, case complexity, and laterality as the covariates demonstrated noninferiority of the SILS technique in terms of operative time (p = 0.031). No conversions from SILS to MP occurred, and the rates of conversion to open procedure did not differ significantly between the cohorts (p = 1.00, Fisher’s exact test), nor did the complication rates (p = 0.65, χ 2).

Conclusions

As shown by the findings, SILS inguinal herniorrhaphy is a safe and feasible alternative to traditional MP inguinal hernia repair and can be performed successfully with similar operative times, conversion rates, and complication rates. Prospective trials are essential to confirm equivalence in these areas and to detect differences in patient-centered outcomes.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rutkow IM (1998) Epidemiologic, economic, and sociologic aspects of hernia surgery in the United States in the 1990s. Surg Clin North Am 78:941–951

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH, Klinge U, Kockerling F, Kuhry E, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Sauerland S, Schug-Pass C, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal Hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25:2773–2843

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W (2004) Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 456 Investigators Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350:1819–1827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liem MS, van der Graaf Y, van Steensel CJ, Boelhouwer RU, Clevers GJ, Meijer WS, Stassen LP, Vente JP, Weidema WF, Schrijvers AJ, van Vroonhoven TJ (1997) Comparison of conventional anterior surgery and laparoscopic surgery for inguinal-hernia repair. N Engl J Med 336:1541–1547

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, Vale L, Grant A (2005) Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9:1–203

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammill CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S (2011) Randomized controlled trail comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254:22–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Muirhead L, Kinross J, Paraskeva P (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26:1205–1213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS, Nagle DA, Young-Fadok TM, Lee EC, Delaney CP (2012) Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg 255:66–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98:1695–1702

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. St Peter SD, Adibe OO, Juang D, Sharp SW, Garey CL, Laituri CA, Murphy JP, Andrews WS, Sharp RJ, Snyder CL, Holcomb GW 3rd, Ostlie DJ (2011) Single-incision versus standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy. Ann Surg 254:586–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Amos SE, Shuo-Dong W, Fan Y, Tian Y, Chen CC (2012) Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a single-centre experience. Surg Today 42:542–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bower CE, Love K (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. JSLS 15:165–168

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sherwinter D (2010) Transitioning to single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy. JSLS 14:353–357

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. He K, Chen H, Ding R, Hua R, Yao Q (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 15:451–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tran H (2011) Safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. JSLS 15:47–52

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fuentes MB, Goel R, Lee-Ong AC, Cabrera EB, Lawenko M, Lopez-Gutierrez J, Lomanto D (2013) Single-port endolaparoscopic surgery (SPES) for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia: a critical appraisal of the chopstick repair. Hernia 17:217–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Muensterer OJ, Keijzer R (2011) A simple vacuum dressing reduces the wound infection rate of single-incision pediatric endosurgical appendectomy. JSLS 15:147–150

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P, Manataki A (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greaves N, Nicholson J (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery in general surgery: a review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93:437–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, Denoto G, Paraskeva P, Rivas H, Soper N, Rosemurgy A, Shah S (2011) Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 201:369–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gill IS, Advincula AP, Aron M, Caddedu J, Canes D, Curcillo PG II, Desai MM, Evanko JC, Falcone T, Fazio V, Gettman M, Gumbs AA, Haber GP, Kaouk JH, Kim F, King SA, Ponsky J, Remzi F, Rivas H, Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Schauer P, Sotelo R, Speranza J, Sweeney J, Teixeira J (2010) Consensus statement of the consortium for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Surg Endosc 24:762–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sato H, Shimada M, Kurita N, Iwata T, Nishioka M, Morimoto S, Yoshikawa K, Miyatani T, Goto M, Kashihara H, Takasu C (2012) The safety and usefulness of the single-incision, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic technique for inguinal hernia. J Med Invest 59:235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

F. Paul Buckley III and John Eckford are proctors for Covidien. Hannah Vassaur, Sharon Monsivais, Nicole E. Sharp, Daniel Jupiter, and Rob Watson have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Paul Buckley III.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buckley, F.P., Vassaur, H., Monsivais, S. et al. Comparison of outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy and traditional three-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy at a single institution. Surg Endosc 28, 30–35 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3145-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3145-7

Keywords

Navigation