Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair in octogenarians

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective chart review was designed to compare outcomes for open and laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernias in the population over the age of 80.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted for 104 patients over 80 years old who underwent inguinal hernia repair (2005–2008) at The Mount Sinai Medical Center. Patients were grouped into laparoscopic or open repair cohorts and compared accordingly.

Results

The open group (n = 73) and the laparoscopic group (n = 31) had mean ages of 84 and 83 years, respectively. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 2.6 for the open cohort and 2.3 for the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05). Peri-operative complications in the open and laparoscopic groups were not found to be statistically significant. There was no mortality in either group.

Conclusions

With octogenarians, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair can be performed as a safe alternative to open repair with comparable rates of morbidity and mortality.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rutkow IM, Robbins AW (1993) Demographic, classificatory, and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States. Surg Clin North Am 73(3):413–426

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K (2003) Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet 362:1561–1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Purkayastha S, Chow A, Athanasiou T et al. (2008) Inguinal hernia [Internet] Clin Evid (Online) Available from: http://eresources.library.mssm.edu:2060/pubmed/19445744. Accessed 10 May 2010

  4. Primatesta P, Goldacre MJ (1996) Inguinal hernia repair: incidence of elective and emergency surgery, readmission and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 25(4):835–839

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurzer M, Kark A, Hussain ST (2009) Day-case inguinal hernia repair in the elderly: a surgical priority. Hernia 13(2):131–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. US Census Bureau, Population Division (2008) Population projections—2008 national population projections: summary tables. Census Bureau Home Page. <http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html>. Accessed 28 June 2010

  7. Turrentine FE, Wang H, Simpson VB, Jones RS (2006) Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 203(6):865–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Woods B, Neumayer L (2008) Open repair of inguinal hernia: an evidence-based review. Surg Clin North Am 88(1):139–155 ix–x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Deeba S, Purkayastha S, Paraskevas P et al (2009) Laparoscopic approach to incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernias. JSLS 13(3):327–331

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Watson SD, Saye W, Hollier PA (1993) Combined laparoscopic incarcerated herniorrhaphy and small bowel resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3(2):106–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Velasco JM, Vallina VL, Esposito DJ, Theodore S (1998) Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy in the geriatric population. Am Surg 64(7):633–637

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Langeveld HR, van’t Riet M, Weidema WF et al (2010) Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein (the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251(5):819–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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):188–199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eklund A, Carlsson P, Rosenblad A et al (2010) Long-term cost-minimization analysis comparing laparoscopic with open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 97(5):765–771

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Koch CA, Grinberg GG, Farley DR (2006) Incidence and risk factors for urinary retention after endoscopic hernia repair. Am J Surg 191(3):381–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bailey HR, Ferguson JA (1976) Prevention of urinary retention by fluid restriction following anorectal operations. Dis Colon Rectum 19(3):250–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jensen P, Mikkelsen T, Kehlet H (2002) Postherniorrhaphy urinary retention–effect of local, regional, and general anesthesia: a review. Reg Anesth Pain Med 27(6):612–617

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Feliu X, Claveria R, Besora P (2011) Bilateral inguinal hernia repair: laparoscopic or open approach? Hernia 15(1):15–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. M. Divino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hernandez-Rosa, J., Lo, C.C., Choi, J.J. et al. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair in octogenarians. Hernia 15, 655–658 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0838-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0838-5

Keywords

Navigation