S Öberg1, K Andresen2, J Rosenberg2. 1. The Danish Hernia Database, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. stina.oeberg@gmail.com. 2. The Danish Hernia Database, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend that the reoperation of a recurrent inguinal hernia should be by the opposite approach (anterior-posterior) than the primary repair. However, the level of evidence supporting the guidelines is partially low. The purpose of this study was to compare re-reoperation rates between repairs performed according to the guidelines with the ones performed against it. METHODS: This cohort study was based on the Danish Hernia Database, including 4344 patients with two inguinal hernia repairs in the same groin. Four groups were compared as follows: Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein vs. Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy, and Laparoscopy-Laparoscopy vs. Laparoscopy-Lichtenstein. The outcome was re-reoperation rates, which were compared by crude rates, cumulated rates, and hazard ratios. RESULTS: There was no difference in the re-reoperation rates when the primary repair was laparoscopic, regardless of the type of reoperation. However, Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein had a significantly higher re-reoperation rate compared with Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy (crude rate 8.7 vs. 3.1 %, p value <0.0005; Hazard Ratio 2.46, 95 % CI 1.76-3.43). Further analysis showed that the higher risk of re-reoperation for Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein was only seen if the primary hernia was medial. CONCLUSIONS: A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary medial hernia should be reoperated with a laparoscopic repair. A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary lateral hernia can be reoperated with either a Lichtenstein or a laparoscopic repair according to surgeon's choice. For a primary laparoscopic operation, the method of repair of a recurrent hernia did not affect the re-reoperation rate.
PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend that the reoperation of a recurrent inguinal hernia should be by the opposite approach (anterior-posterior) than the primary repair. However, the level of evidence supporting the guidelines is partially low. The purpose of this study was to compare re-reoperation rates between repairs performed according to the guidelines with the ones performed against it. METHODS: This cohort study was based on the Danish Hernia Database, including 4344 patients with two inguinal hernia repairs in the same groin. Four groups were compared as follows: Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein vs. Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy, and Laparoscopy-Laparoscopy vs. Laparoscopy-Lichtenstein. The outcome was re-reoperation rates, which were compared by crude rates, cumulated rates, and hazard ratios. RESULTS: There was no difference in the re-reoperation rates when the primary repair was laparoscopic, regardless of the type of reoperation. However, Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein had a significantly higher re-reoperation rate compared with Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy (crude rate 8.7 vs. 3.1 %, p value <0.0005; Hazard Ratio 2.46, 95 % CI 1.76-3.43). Further analysis showed that the higher risk of re-reoperation for Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein was only seen if the primary hernia was medial. CONCLUSIONS: A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary medial hernia should be reoperated with a laparoscopic repair. A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary lateral hernia can be reoperated with either a Lichtenstein or a laparoscopic repair according to surgeon's choice. For a primary laparoscopic operation, the method of repair of a recurrent hernia did not affect the re-reoperation rate.
Entities:
Keywords:
Guidelines; Inguinal hernia; Laparoscopic repair; Lichtenstein; Re-reoperation rate; Type of hernia
Authors: Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: A Kald; E Nilsson; B Anderberg; M Bragmark; P Engström; U Gunnarsson; S Haapaniemi; J Lindhagen; P Nilsson; G Sandblom; A Stubberöd Journal: Eur J Surg Date: 1998-01
Authors: M P Simons; T Aufenacker; M Bay-Nielsen; J L Bouillot; G Campanelli; J Conze; D de Lange; R Fortelny; T Heikkinen; A Kingsnorth; J Kukleta; S Morales-Conde; P Nordin; V Schumpelick; S Smedberg; M Smietanski; G Weber; M Miserez Journal: Hernia Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: M Miserez; E Peeters; T Aufenacker; J L Bouillot; G Campanelli; J Conze; R Fortelny; T Heikkinen; L N Jorgensen; J Kukleta; S Morales-Conde; P Nordin; V Schumpelick; S Smedberg; M Smietanski; G Weber; M P Simons Journal: Hernia Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 4.739