4.3 Article

Effect of direct defect closure during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TEP/TAPP plus technique) on post-operative outcomes

Journal

HERNIA
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 167-171

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-019-02036-1

Keywords

Inguinal hernia; Direct defect; Defect closure; Hernia repair

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Seroma formation and recurrence in large inguinal hernia still remain an important clinical complication despite decades since the advent of mesh repair. Methods In our prospective comparative analysis, we want to evaluate the effect of direct hernia defect closure on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in two tertiary care institutions in Singapore. The direct hernia defects were closed with non-absorbable sutures incorporating the pseudosac. Results A group of 241 patients underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair for a total of 378 direct defects from April 2014 to July 2018. Of these patients, 98 (40.6%) patients underwent hernia repair without closure of their direct defect while 143 (59.4%) patients underwent direct defect closure. No significant differences were observed between the two patient populations' demographic information and the mean operative time. A total of 219 direct defects were closed and 159 direct defects were not repaired. Compared to the group that did not undergo direct defect closure, the group that had closure of the direct defects demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in recurrence (4.4% versus 0.9%, p = 0.036) and seroma formation (12.6% versus 6.4%, p = 0.045). Conclusion Direct defect closure has proven to be effective in reducing recurrence and seroma formation post-operatively in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Randomized controlled trials will be required to further evaluate these outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available