SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF BILATERAL INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR USING OPEN, LAPAROSCOPIC AND ROBOTICS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-01-13005Keywords:
Robotic TAPP, Laparoscopic TAPP, open Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.Abstract
Background: To compare the operative and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing bilateral inguinal hernia repair using open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques. Methods: A total of 51 patients with bilateral inguinal hernia were operated on from March 2023 to February 2024. These patients were randomly assigned into Group-A undergoing open Lichtenstein repair, Group-B undergoing laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and Group-C undergoing robotic TAPP. In open repair a polypropylene mesh of 6X11cms was used while for laparoscopic and robotic, a mesh of 10X15cms was used and single suture, absorbable or non-absorbable tacker fixation was done. Patients were given Co-amoxiclav 1.2gm intravenous followed by oral co-amoxiclav 625mg three times a day for 3 days. Injection Ketorolac 30mg was given intravenous twice daily followed by oral Diclofenac 50mg twice daily for 3 days. Postoperative pain score using VAS was done at 12 hours and 24 hours. Patients were discharged on the 1st postoperative day and called for follow-up on the 7th postoperative day for wound examination and VAS scoring and stitch removal. Signs of infection, hematoma of wound and scrotum were assessed on 7th postoperative day. Results: A total of 51 male patients were included in the study and divided equally into three groups of 17 each. The age ranged from 41–65 years with mean age of 52.49±6.39. The mean body mass index was 21.25±2.86. Mean duration of surgery among open, laparoscopic and robotics was 76.47, 125.00 and 115.59 minutes respectively (p<0.0001). Postoperatively visual analogue score at 12 hours, 24 hours and at 7 days among the three groups was not significant. Postoperative complications including infection, hematoma, and urinary retention among the three groups were comparable. Conclusion: The duration of surgery was significantly quicker in open surgery while post operative complications and length of stay were comparable among the three groups.
References
1. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair. Technology appraisal guidance Reference number: TA83 Published: 22 September 2004. NICE guidelines. [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta83/resources/laparoscopic-surgery-for-inguinal-hernia-repair-pdf-2294817305029
2. HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 2018;22(1):1–165.
3. Hope WW, Pfeifer C. Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair. [Updated 2023 Jul 3]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430826/
4. Elmessiry MM, Gebaly AA. “Laparoscopic versus open mesh repair of bilateral primary inguinal hernia: A three-armed Randomized controlled trial.” Ann Med Surg 2020;59:145–50.
5. Burton V, Perez AJ. Comparison of open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Mini-Invasive Surg 2021;5:26.
6. de'Angelis N, Schena CA, Moszkowicz D, Kuperas C, Fara R, Gaujoux S, et al. Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2024;38:24–46.
7. Solaini L, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, Rocco G, Ercolani G. Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robotic Surg 2022;16:775–81.
8. Qabbani A, Aboumarzouk OM, El-Bakry T, Al-Ansari A, Elakkad MS. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 2021;91:2277–87.
9. Salma U, Ahmed I, Ishtiaq S. A comparison of post operative pain and hospital stay between Lichtenstein's repair and Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) repair of inguinal hernia: A randomized controlled trial. Pak J Med Sci 2015;31(5):1062–6.
10. Pokala B, Armijo PR, Flores L. Hennings D, Oleynikov D. Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review. Hernia 2019;23:593–9.
11. Pedroso LM, DE-Melo RM, DA-Silva Jr NJ. Comparative study of postoperative pain between the lichtenstein and laparoscopy surgical techniques for the treatment of unilateral primary inguinal hernia. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig São Paulo 2017;30(3):173–6.
12. Tish S, Krpata D, Al Marzooqi R, Huang LC, Phillips S, Fafaj A, et al. Comparing 30-day outcomes between different mesh fixation techniques in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2020;24:961–8.
13. Prabhu AS, Carbonell A, Hope W, Warren J, Higgins R, Jacob B, et al. Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 2020;155(5):380–7.
14. Awad MA, Buzalewski J, Anderson C, Dove JT, Soloski A, Sharp NE, et al. Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair Outcomes: Operative Time and Cost Analysis. JSLS J Soc Laparosc Robot Surg 2020;24(4):e2020.00058.
15. Ng TP, Brandon YKL, Clement LKC. Seroma-prevention strategies in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg 6(1):14–22.
16. Zhu Y, Liu M, Li J, Wang M. Closure of direct inguinal hernia defect in laparoscopic hernioplasty to prevent seroma formation: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2019;29(1):18–21.
17. Ruze R, Yan Z, Wu Q, Zhan H, Zhang G. Correlation between laparoscopic transection of an indirect inguinal hernial sac and postoperative seroma formation: A prospective randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc 2019;33:1147–54.
18. Park CY, Kim JC, Kim DY, Kim SK. Inguinal hernia repair in overweight and obese patients. J Korean Surg Soc 2011;81(3):205–10.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Shahriyar Ghazanfar, Aftab Ahmed Leghari, Erum Kazim, Rabia Feroz, Faisal Ibrahim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
