Stina Öberg1, Kristoffer Andresen2, Hanna Nilsson3, Eva Angenete3, Jacob Rosenberg2. 1. Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev Ringvej 75, Herlev, 2730, Copenhagen, Denmark. stina.oeberg@gmail.com. 2. Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev Ringvej 75, Herlev, 2730, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group, Sahlgrenska University Hospital Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best repair of a recurrent inguinal hernia after primary laparoendoscopic repair is debatable. The aim was to assess chronic pain after two laparoendoscopic repairs in the same groin compared with Lichtenstein reoperation preceded by a laparoendoscopic repair. METHODS: This cohort study included adult patients who had received two laparoendoscopic repairs (Lap-Lap) or a laparoendoscopic repair followed by the Lichtenstein repair (Lap-Lich). Eligible patients were identified in the Danish and the Swedish hernia databases. Lap-Lap was matched 1:3 with Lap-Lich, and patients were sent validated questionnaires. The primary outcome was the proportion with chronic pain-related functional impairment, compared between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included chronic pain during various activities. RESULTS: In total, 74% (546 patients) responded to the questionnaires with a median follow-up since the second repair of 4.9 years (0.9-21.9 years). Regarding the primary outcome, 21% in Lap-Lap and Lap-Lich had chronic pain-related functional impairment of daily activities (p = 0.94). More patients in Lap-Lap compared with Lap-Lich reported pain ≥ 20 mm measured by the visual analog scale, 11% versus 5%, p = 0.04. However, there was no difference in the median VAS score or in the vast majority of the remaining secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There was no overall difference in chronic pain between patients who had received Lap-Lap compared with Lap-Lich. Choice of operative strategy for the second repair should, therefore, not be based on risk of chronic pain.
BACKGROUND: The best repair of a recurrent inguinal hernia after primary laparoendoscopic repair is debatable. The aim was to assess chronic pain after two laparoendoscopic repairs in the same groin compared with Lichtenstein reoperation preceded by a laparoendoscopic repair. METHODS: This cohort study included adult patients who had received two laparoendoscopic repairs (Lap-Lap) or a laparoendoscopic repair followed by the Lichtenstein repair (Lap-Lich). Eligible patients were identified in the Danish and the Swedish hernia databases. Lap-Lap was matched 1:3 with Lap-Lich, and patients were sent validated questionnaires. The primary outcome was the proportion with chronic pain-related functional impairment, compared between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included chronic pain during various activities. RESULTS: In total, 74% (546 patients) responded to the questionnaires with a median follow-up since the second repair of 4.9 years (0.9-21.9 years). Regarding the primary outcome, 21% in Lap-Lap and Lap-Lich had chronic pain-related functional impairment of daily activities (p = 0.94). More patients in Lap-Lap compared with Lap-Lich reported pain ≥ 20 mm measured by the visual analog scale, 11% versus 5%, p = 0.04. However, there was no difference in the median VAS score or in the vast majority of the remaining secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There was no overall difference in chronic pain between patients who had received Lap-Lap compared with Lap-Lich. Choice of operative strategy for the second repair should, therefore, not be based on risk of chronic pain.
Authors: R Bittner; M A Montgomery; E Arregui; V Bansal; J Bingener; T Bisgaard; H Buhck; M Dudai; G S Ferzli; R J Fitzgibbons; R H Fortelny; K L Grimes; U Klinge; F Köckerling; F Koeckerling; S Kumar; J Kukleta; D Lomanto; M C Misra; S Morales-Conde; W Reinpold; J Rosenberg; K Singh; M Timoney; D Weyhe; P Chowbey Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Amudha S Poobalan; Julie Bruce; W Cairns S Smith; Peter M King; Zygmunt H Krukowski; W Alastair Chambers Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Anne Kjaergaard Danielsen; Hans-Christian Pommergaard; Jakob Burcharth; Eva Angenete; Jacob Rosenberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240