, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 299–303 | Cite as

Feasibility of totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic hernia repair in elderly patients

  • Y. Chung
  • J. W. Choi
  • H. C. Kim
  • S. H. Kim
  • S. I. ChoiEmail author
Original Article



Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal peritoneal (TEP) repair has become increasingly popular since its introduction. The purpose of this study is to establish the safety and feasibility of TEP in elderly patients compared to that in younger patients.


The clinical records of patients who received TEP hernia repair from August 2007 to September 2016 were reviewed. The patients were categorized into two groups: younger than 70 and 70 years or older. The patient demographics, operative time, estimated blood loss, rate of open conversion, complications, length of hospital stay, rate of readmission, rate of recurrence were compared.


A total of 425 cases were documented. 317 (74.6%) patients were younger than 70 years and 108 (25.4%) were 70 years or older. The mean ages were 51.6 years in the younger group and 75.3 years in the older group. Co-morbidities (34.0% vs 72.2%, p = 0.000) and ASA score III and IV (4.1% vs. 6.5%, p value = 0.000) were more common in the elderly group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of history of previous surgery in the lower abdominal region (23.9% vs 29.6%, p = 0.292), overall complications (7.2% vs 12.7%, p value = 0.177), and anesthesia-related complications (0% vs 1%, p value = 0.617). The operative time was similar between the two groups (54.3 vs 57.1 p = 0.220). The length of hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.0, p = 0.022) was longer in the elderly group.


Laparoscopic TEP hernia repair can be performed safely in elderly patients without differences in perioperative complications and recurrence rate compared to that in a younger population despite a longer hospital stay.


Laparoscopy Inguinal hernia Elderly Totally extraperitoneal hernia repair 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was agreed by the ethical committee of our institution (IRB File No. 2018-12-0003).

Human and animal rights

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

Informed consent

For this retrospective review, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    The HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22(1):1–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tetik C, Arregui ME, Dulucq JL, Fitzgibbons RJ, Franklin ME, McKernan JB, Rosin RD, Schultz LS, Toy FK (1994) Complications and recurrences associated with laparoscopic repair of groin hernias. A multi-institutional retrospective analysis. Surg Endosc 8(11):1316–1322 (discussion 1322–1313) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wei FX, Zhang YC, Han W, Zhang YL, Shao Y, Ni R (2015) Transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) for laparoscopic hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 25(5):375–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langeveld HR, van’t Riet M, Weidema WF, Stassen LP, Steyerberg EW, Lange J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J (2010) Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein (the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251(5):819–824. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bobo Z, Nan W, Qin Q, Tao W, Jianguo L, Xianli H (2014) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing Lichtenstein and totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernioplasty in treatment of inguinal hernias. J Surg Res 192(2):409–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kockerling F, Bittner R, Jacob DA, Seidelmann L, Keller T, Adolf D, Kraft B, Kuthe A (2015) TEP versus TAPP: comparison of the perioperative outcome in 17,587 patients with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 29(12):3750–3760. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morales-Conde S, Socas M, Fingerhut A (2012) Endoscopic surgeons’ preferences for inguinal hernia repair: TEP, TAPP, or OPEN. Surg Endosc 26(9):2639–2643. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B, Memon MI, Abrams KR (2003) Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 90(12):1479–1492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhry E, van Veen RN, Langeveld HR, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2007) Open or endoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair? A systematic review. Surg Endosc 21(2):161–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kockerling F, Simons MP (2018) Current concepts of inguinal hernia repair. Visc Med 34(2):145–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winslow ER, Quasebarth M, Brunt LM (2004) Perioperative outcomes and complications of open vs laparoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair in a mature surgical practice. Surg Endosc 18(2):221–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burcharth J, Pedersen M, Bisgaard T, Pedersen C, Rosenberg J (2013) Nationwide prevalence of groin hernia repair. PloS One 8(1):e54367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Ramanan B, Arya S, Turner SA, Li X, Gibbs JO, Reda DJ (2013) Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of a nonoperative strategy (watchful waiting) for men with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias. Ann Surg 258(3):508–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Goede B, Wijsmuller AR, van Ramshorst GH, van Kempen BJ, Hop WCJ, Klitsie PJ, Scheltinga MR, de Haan J, Mastboom WJB, van der Harst E, Simons MP, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2018) Watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267(1):42–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gibbs JO, Dunlop DD, Reda DJ, McCarthy M Jr, Neumayer LA, Barkun JS, Hoehn JL, Murphy JT, Sarosi GA Jr, Syme WC, Thompson JS, Wang J, Jonasson O (2006) Watchful waiting vs repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 295(3):285–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van den Heuvel B, Dwars BJ, Klassen DR, Bonjer HJ (2011) Is surgical repair of an asymptomatic groin hernia appropriate? A review. Hernia 15(3):251–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Storm-Dickerson TL, Horattas MC (2003) What have we learned over the past 20 years about appendicitis in the elderly? Am J Surg 185(3):198–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eklund A, Rudberg C, Smedberg S, Enander LK, Leijonmarck CE, Osterberg J, Montgomery A (2006) Short-term results of a randomized clinical trial comparing Lichtenstein open repair with totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 93(9):1060–1068. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zanella S, Vassiliadis A, Buccelletti F, Lauro E, Ricci F, Lumachi F (2015) Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair in the elderly: a prospective control study. In vivo (Athens, Greece) 29(4):493–496Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simons MP, Aufenacker 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):343–403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Graduate SchoolKyung Hee UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Kyung Hee University School of MedicineKyung Hee University Hospital at GangdongSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations