BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia is a common disease treated with diverse methods. Nowadays, laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach is gaining its validity and shows favorable outcomes. However, single-incision laparoscopic surgery is also widening its applicable fields as a new technique. This study aimed to find whether single-incision laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (SILTEP) is applicable compared to conventional laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair (CLTEP). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 120 cases of SILTEP and 60 cases of CLTEP in Yonsei University Severance Hospital from January 2012 to December 2013. Each group was compared with patients' characteristics, operative details, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: There were no statistical difference in patient age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, hernia type, or location between SILTEP and CLTEP. In operative details, operation time (61.77 ± 16.48 minutes versus 77.83 ± 35.15 minutes, P = .001) was shorter in SILTEP. Postoperative complication rate has shown no statistical difference in SILTEP compared to CLTEP (n = 20, 16.7% versus n = 16, 26.7%, P = .114). CONCLUSIONS: SILTEP is feasible and provides comparable postoperative outcomes compared to CLTEP. Although SILTEP has its own challenges for mastering the procedure, with some experiences, it is possible to operate as well as CLTEP.
BACKGROUND:Inguinal hernia is a common disease treated with diverse methods. Nowadays, laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach is gaining its validity and shows favorable outcomes. However, single-incision laparoscopic surgery is also widening its applicable fields as a new technique. This study aimed to find whether single-incision laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (SILTEP) is applicable compared to conventional laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair (CLTEP). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 120 cases of SILTEP and 60 cases of CLTEP in Yonsei University Severance Hospital from January 2012 to December 2013. Each group was compared with patients' characteristics, operative details, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: There were no statistical difference in patient age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, hernia type, or location between SILTEP and CLTEP. In operative details, operation time (61.77 ± 16.48 minutes versus 77.83 ± 35.15 minutes, P = .001) was shorter in SILTEP. Postoperative complication rate has shown no statistical difference in SILTEP compared to CLTEP (n = 20, 16.7% versus n = 16, 26.7%, P = .114). CONCLUSIONS: SILTEP is feasible and provides comparable postoperative outcomes compared to CLTEP. Although SILTEP has its own challenges for mastering the procedure, with some experiences, it is possible to operate as well as CLTEP.