Laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: retrospective comparison of TEP and TAPP procedures in a tertiary referral center.

IF 1.3 Q3 Medicine
Monica Ortenzi, Sophie Williams, Nidaa Solanki, Mario Guerrieri, Amyn Haji
{"title":"Laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: retrospective comparison of TEP and TAPP procedures in a tertiary referral center.","authors":"Monica Ortenzi,&nbsp;Sophie Williams,&nbsp;Nidaa Solanki,&nbsp;Mario Guerrieri,&nbsp;Amyn Haji","doi":"10.23736/S0026-4733.20.08518-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND The technical evolution of hernia repair has brought to the introduction of laparoscopy in this field. The most common laparoscopic techniques are transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair. Indirect comparisons between TAPP and TEP have raised questions as to which is the superior approach in improving patient outcomes; however, there is still a scarcity of data directly comparing these laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this report is to offer a retrospective comparison between the two techniques with a long-term follow-up. METHODS This study is a retrospective comparative study, comparing TEP and TAPP in the treatment of groin hernias. All patients undergoing laparoscopic hernia repair from 2015 and 2020 at a large UK Hospital Trust with tertiary referral center, were considered as eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was rate of successful surgery defined as absence of recurrence and chronic pain at the end of the follow-up. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate (the switch from TEP to TAPP was considered as a conversion for the index procedure), need for admission, readmission rate, serious adverse events (including visceral injuries and vascular injuries), rate of persisting pain at the end of follow-up, operative time and overall complications rate (hematoma, seroma, wound/superficial infection, mesh/deep infection, port site hernia). RESULTS Of the patients included in the study who underwent laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia between 2015 and 2020, 140 (55.1%) underwent TEP and 114 (44.9%) had TAPP repair. The mean operative time did not differ between the two groups (P=0.202). The conversion rate was nil. The two procedures did not differ for intraoperative and postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the TAPP group (P<0.0001). The overall recurrence rate was 2.4%. and did not differ between the two groups. Costs were acquired from the clinical coding department. Mean costs were measured in pounds sterling and a significant difference was noted between the two groups (P=0.083). In the short term, the most common complication was seroma formation and was significantly more frequent in the TAPP group (P<0.001). In the long term, chronic pain was the most frequent complication in both groups and significant correlated when the operation performed for recurrent hernia, whereas the hernia Type 3 was a factor that which influenced recurrence. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, TAPP and TEP have similar, overall complication risks, postoperative acute and chronic pain incidence and recurrence rates. Since TAPP and TEP have comparable outcomes it is recommended that the choice of the technique should be based on the surgeon's skills, education, and experience.","PeriodicalId":18714,"journal":{"name":"Minerva chirurgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva chirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4733.20.08518-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

BACKGROUND The technical evolution of hernia repair has brought to the introduction of laparoscopy in this field. The most common laparoscopic techniques are transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair. Indirect comparisons between TAPP and TEP have raised questions as to which is the superior approach in improving patient outcomes; however, there is still a scarcity of data directly comparing these laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this report is to offer a retrospective comparison between the two techniques with a long-term follow-up. METHODS This study is a retrospective comparative study, comparing TEP and TAPP in the treatment of groin hernias. All patients undergoing laparoscopic hernia repair from 2015 and 2020 at a large UK Hospital Trust with tertiary referral center, were considered as eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was rate of successful surgery defined as absence of recurrence and chronic pain at the end of the follow-up. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate (the switch from TEP to TAPP was considered as a conversion for the index procedure), need for admission, readmission rate, serious adverse events (including visceral injuries and vascular injuries), rate of persisting pain at the end of follow-up, operative time and overall complications rate (hematoma, seroma, wound/superficial infection, mesh/deep infection, port site hernia). RESULTS Of the patients included in the study who underwent laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia between 2015 and 2020, 140 (55.1%) underwent TEP and 114 (44.9%) had TAPP repair. The mean operative time did not differ between the two groups (P=0.202). The conversion rate was nil. The two procedures did not differ for intraoperative and postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the TAPP group (P<0.0001). The overall recurrence rate was 2.4%. and did not differ between the two groups. Costs were acquired from the clinical coding department. Mean costs were measured in pounds sterling and a significant difference was noted between the two groups (P=0.083). In the short term, the most common complication was seroma formation and was significantly more frequent in the TAPP group (P<0.001). In the long term, chronic pain was the most frequent complication in both groups and significant correlated when the operation performed for recurrent hernia, whereas the hernia Type 3 was a factor that which influenced recurrence. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, TAPP and TEP have similar, overall complication risks, postoperative acute and chronic pain incidence and recurrence rates. Since TAPP and TEP have comparable outcomes it is recommended that the choice of the technique should be based on the surgeon's skills, education, and experience.
腹腔镜修补腹股沟疝:回顾性比较TEP和TAPP程序在三级转诊中心。
背景:随着疝修补技术的发展,腹腔镜技术在疝修补领域的应用越来越广泛。最常见的腹腔镜技术是经腹腹膜前(TAPP)修复和完全腹膜外(TEP)修复。TAPP和TEP之间的间接比较提出了关于哪种方法在改善患者预后方面更好的问题;然而,仍然缺乏直接比较这些腹腔镜入路的数据。本报告的目的是通过长期随访对两种技术进行回顾性比较。方法:回顾性比较TEP与TAPP治疗腹股沟疝的疗效。2015年至2020年在一家大型英国医院信托基金三级转诊中心接受腹腔镜疝修补术的所有患者均被认为符合纳入条件。主要终点是手术成功率,定义为随访结束时无复发和慢性疼痛。次要终点是转换率(从TEP到TAPP的转换被认为是指标程序的转换)、入院需要、再入院率、严重不良事件(包括内脏损伤和血管损伤)、随访结束时持续疼痛率、手术时间和总并发症率(血肿、血肿、伤口/浅表感染、补片/深部感染、端口部位疝)。结果:本研究纳入的2015 - 2020年腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术患者中,140例(55.1%)行TEP, 114例(44.9%)行TAPP修补术。两组平均手术时间差异无统计学意义(P=0.202)。转化率为零。两种方法在术中和术后并发症方面没有差异。结论:TAPP组患者住院时间明显长于TEP组(p < 0.05)。结论:TAPP组与TEP组总体并发症发生率、术后急慢性疼痛发生率及复发率相似。由于TAPP和TEP的结果可比较,因此建议根据外科医生的技能、教育和经验来选择技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva chirurgica
Minerva chirurgica 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Chirurgica publishes scientific papers on surgery. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信