| Literature DB >> 29258479 |
Julia Isabelle Staubitz1, Peter Gassmann1, Daniel Wilhelm Kauff2, Hauke Lang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An inguinoscrotal hernia is defined as "giant" if descending below the midpoint of the inner thigh of a patient in upright position. In developed countries this is a rare entity. In the literature different surgical techniques have been reported so far to achieve a successful treatment. CASEEntities:
Keywords: Components separation; Hernia; Hernia repair; Inguinal hernia
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29258479 PMCID: PMC5735886 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-017-0331-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Fig. 1Frontal view of the giant inguinoscrotal hernia descending to the level of the knees (a). Computed tomography of the entity displaying subtotal evisceration of small bowel and ascending and transverse colon with intact vascularization (b/c)
Fig. 2Clinical result following surgical treatment of giant inguinoscrotal hernia at 1.5 year postoperative follow-up
Comparison of different surgical approaches to giant inguinoscrotal hernias
| Bowel preparation | Pneumoperitoneum | Laparoscopic approach | Open abdominal approach | (Extended) inguinal approach | Omentectomy | Bowel resection | Orchiectomy | Scrotum resection | Components separation | Mesh in premuscular position | Mesh in preperitoneal postition | Mesh between internal and external oblique | Appendectomy | Postoperative intensive care | Postoperative discharge day | Hematocele/seroma development | Recurrence | Last follow-up (postoperative month) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | – | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | – | – | 8 | + | – | 18 | Present Case Report |
| – | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | n/a | n/a | – | n/a | n/a | Baca-Prieto et al. 2017 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | 7× | – | 1 | – | – | + | – | – | 2× | n/a | 6.3* | 10× | – | 48 | Bierca et al. 2013 [ |
| + | – | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | 9 | – | – | 18–96 | Cavalli et al. 2015 [ |
| + | – | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | 8 | – | – | Cavalli et al. 2015 [ | |
| + | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | 7 | – | – | Cavalli et al. 2015 [ | |
| + | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | 6 | – | – | Cavalli et al. 2015 [ | |
| – | – | – | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | 4 | + | – | 3 | Dinesh et al. 2014 [ |
| + | – | – | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 28 | – | – | 8 | Fadiran et al. 1992 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | n/a | n/a | – | – | 12 | Gillellamudi et al. 2010 [ |
| – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | 5 | – | n/a | n/a | Goonetilleke et al. 2010 [ |
| + | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | – | 13 | + | – | 2 | Hamad et al. 2013 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | n/a | – | – | 36 | Karthikeyan et al. 2014 [ |
| – | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | 7 | – | – | 36 | Kovachev et al. 2010 [ |
| – | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | 7 | – | – | 24 | Kovachev et al. 2010 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | + | 8 | – | n/a | n/a | Kumar et al. 2016 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | 6 | – | – | n/a | Mohamad et al. 2017 [ |
| + | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | 12 | – | – | 12 | Momiyama et al. 2016 [ |
| – | – | – | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | n/a | – | – | 6 | Monestiroli et al. 2007 [ |
| – | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | n/a | – | – | 12 | Patsas et al. 2010 [ |
| – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | + | – | 14 | – | – | 11 | Piskin et al. 2010 [ |
| – | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | + | – | 13 | – | – | 9 | Piskin et al. 2010 [ |
| – | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | 10 | – | – | 6 | Sahsamanis et al. 2016 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1× | – | 1 | Savoie et al. 2014 [ |
| – | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | n/a | n/a | – | – | 1 | Singh et al. 2015 [ |
| + | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | 2× | – | – | 4× | – | – | – | 3 | – | – | 12 | Sturniolo et al. 1999 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | 7 | + | – | 48 | Trakarnsagna et al. 2014 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | + | – | – | + | + | 6 | – | – | 3 | Turner et al. 2010 [ |
| – | – | – | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | 6 | – | – | 6 | Tarchouli et al. 2015 [ |
n/a = not assessed, * = “on average” in cited source