BACKGROUND: The impact of preperitoneal mesh repair for inguinal hernia on future pelvic surgery is debatable. This retrospective study investigated the impact of previous preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (PIHR) on outcome after open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) for prostatic cancer. METHODS: Patients who had open RRP and who had previously undergone PIHR were identified. They were compared with a control group of patients matched for age, body mass index and tumour risk profile who had no history of inguinal hernia repair. Outcome measures included intraoperative data, histopathology and results at follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty patients who had undergone open RRP after a previous PIHR were compared with 60 control patients. Operations lasted longer in the PIHR group (median (interquartile range, i.q.r.) 100 (90-120) versus 90 (85-100) min respectively; P < 0·001) and the operation was assessed as more difficult by the surgeon (P = 0·022). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had undergone PIHR (median (i.q.r.) 7 (6-9) versus 6 (5-7) days; P = 0·012) and urinary catheterization was prolonged (13 (11-14) versus 11 (11-12) days; P = 0·006). Among patients with intermediate- and high-risk disease, fewer lymph nodes were excised in the PIHR group than in the control group (median (i.q.r.) 2 (0-7) versus 8 (5-12) nodes; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Open RRP for prostatic cancer was more difficult to perform after previous PIHR, and was associated with a longer hospital stay and less adequate lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostatic cancer.
BACKGROUND: The impact of preperitoneal mesh repair for inguinal hernia on future pelvic surgery is debatable. This retrospective study investigated the impact of previous preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (PIHR) on outcome after open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) for prostatic cancer. METHODS:Patients who had open RRP and who had previously undergone PIHR were identified. They were compared with a control group of patients matched for age, body mass index and tumour risk profile who had no history of inguinal hernia repair. Outcome measures included intraoperative data, histopathology and results at follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty patients who had undergone open RRP after a previous PIHR were compared with 60 control patients. Operations lasted longer in the PIHR group (median (interquartile range, i.q.r.) 100 (90-120) versus 90 (85-100) min respectively; P < 0·001) and the operation was assessed as more difficult by the surgeon (P = 0·022). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had undergone PIHR (median (i.q.r.) 7 (6-9) versus 6 (5-7) days; P = 0·012) and urinary catheterization was prolonged (13 (11-14) versus 11 (11-12) days; P = 0·006). Among patients with intermediate- and high-risk disease, fewer lymph nodes were excised in the PIHR group than in the control group (median (i.q.r.) 2 (0-7) versus 8 (5-12) nodes; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Open RRP for prostatic cancer was more difficult to perform after previous PIHR, and was associated with a longer hospital stay and less adequate lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostatic cancer.
Authors: Stefano C M Picozzi; Cristian Ricci; Luigi Bonavina; Davide Bona; Robert Stubinski; Alberto Macchi; Dario Ratti; Elisabetta Finkelberg; Luca Carmignani Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 4.226