Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2006

01-09-2006

Day case laparoscopic herniorraphy

A NICE procedure with a long learning curve

Authors: M. Lim, C. J. O’Boyle, C. M. S. Royston, P. C. Sedman

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 9/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate day case laparoscopic herniorraphy (LH) and to ascertain the impact of trainee surgeons on its performance.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of ambulatory laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal herniorraphies performed in a dedicated day surgical unit between March 1996 and October 2003.

Results

A total of 840 herniorraphies were performed in 706 consecutive patients. Surgery was performed by 15 higher surgical trainees and three consultant surgeons. The mean operating times for trainees were longer for unilateral (48.4 ± 0.98 vs 41.4 ± 0.87 min, p < 0.05) and bilateral (69.0 ± 3.24 vs 53.0 ± 1.68 min, p < 0.05) repairs than for consultants. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that after an experience of 40 procedures, trainee times approached those of the consultants (41.39 ± 1.17 vs 41.4 ± 0.87 min, p= 0.31). LH repair was well tolerated and associated with minimal postoperative pain and nausea. Mean pain scores postoperatively and at 24 h were 2.69 ± 0.11 and 2.07 ± 0.09, respectively. Mean nausea scores postoperatively and at 24 h were 0.34 ± 0.06 and 0.22 ± 0.06, respectively. Ninety-three percent of patients (n = 657) were discharged within 8 h. There were two conversions to an open procedure (0.1%) and two significant complications (0.1%). Ninety-five percent of patients who responded to our questionnaire (n = 398/419) were satisfied with surgery and would undergo day case laparoscopic herniorraphy again.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic herniorraphy is a safe technique suitable for day case surgery. Operator experience dictates duration of surgery. Trainees’ operating times approach those of consultants after 40 procedures. Prolonged operating times and increased cost are not justifiable reasons for not recommending LH.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Anonymous (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1 Anonymous (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1
2.
go back to reference Bloor K, Fremantle N, et al. (2003) Impact of NICE guidelines on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. Br Med J 326: 578CrossRef Bloor K, Fremantle N, et al. (2003) Impact of NICE guidelines on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. Br Med J 326: 578CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brooks DC, Rattner DW, et al. (1994) A prospective comparison of transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair versus traditional open hernia repair in a university setting. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4: 247–253 Brooks DC, Rattner DW, et al. (1994) A prospective comparison of transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair versus traditional open hernia repair in a university setting. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4: 247–253
4.
go back to reference Choudary RK, Hasan AMF (2003) NICE guidelines on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia: guidelines are less clinical excellence than hindrance. Br Med J 326: 1144CrossRef Choudary RK, Hasan AMF (2003) NICE guidelines on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia: guidelines are less clinical excellence than hindrance. Br Med J 326: 1144CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Edward CC, Bailey RW (2000) Laparoscopic hernia repair: the learning curve. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percut Tech 10: 149–153CrossRef Edward CC, Bailey RW (2000) Laparoscopic hernia repair: the learning curve. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percut Tech 10: 149–153CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Evans DS (2002) Laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) repair of groin hernia: one surgeon’s experience of a developing technique: Hunterian lecture. Ann R Coll Surg 84: 393–398CrossRef Evans DS (2002) Laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) repair of groin hernia: one surgeon’s experience of a developing technique: Hunterian lecture. Ann R Coll Surg 84: 393–398CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Feliu-Pala X, Martin-Gomez M, et al. (2001) The impact of the surgeon’s experience on the results of laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Endosc 15: 1467–1470PubMed Feliu-Pala X, Martin-Gomez M, et al. (2001) The impact of the surgeon’s experience on the results of laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Endosc 15: 1467–1470PubMed
8.
go back to reference Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Hulkko A (1998) A cost and outcome comparison between laparoscopic and Lichtenstein hernia operations in a day case unit. A randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 12: 1199–1203PubMedCrossRef Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Hulkko A (1998) A cost and outcome comparison between laparoscopic and Lichtenstein hernia operations in a day case unit. A randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 12: 1199–1203PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Johansson B, Hallerback B, et al. (1999) Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicentre trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Ann Surg 230: 225–231PubMedCrossRef Johansson B, Hallerback B, et al. (1999) Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicentre trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Ann Surg 230: 225–231PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Juul P, Christensen K (1999) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 86: 316–319PubMedCrossRef Juul P, Christensen K (1999) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 86: 316–319PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kald A, Anderberg B (1997) Surgical outcome and cost-minimization analyses of laparoscopic and open hernia repair: a randomized prospective trial with one year follow up. Eur J Surg 163: 505–510PubMed Kald A, Anderberg B (1997) Surgical outcome and cost-minimization analyses of laparoscopic and open hernia repair: a randomized prospective trial with one year follow up. Eur J Surg 163: 505–510PubMed
12.
go back to reference Kozol R, Lange PM, et al. (1997) A prospective randomized study of open vs laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. An assessment of postoperative pain. Arch Surg 132: 292–295PubMed Kozol R, Lange PM, et al. (1997) A prospective randomized study of open vs laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. An assessment of postoperative pain. Arch Surg 132: 292–295PubMed
13.
go back to reference Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, et al. (1996) An economic evaluation of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. J Public Health Med 18: 41–48PubMed Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, et al. (1996) An economic evaluation of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. J Public Health Med 18: 41–48PubMed
14.
go back to reference Liem MSL, Van DGY, et al. (1997) A randomized comparison of physical performance following laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 84: 64–67PubMedCrossRef Liem MSL, Van DGY, et al. (1997) A randomized comparison of physical performance following laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 84: 64–67PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference McCloud JM, Evans DS (2003) Day case laparoscopic hernia repair in a single unit. Surg Endosc 17: 491–493PubMedCrossRef McCloud JM, Evans DS (2003) Day case laparoscopic hernia repair in a single unit. Surg Endosc 17: 491–493PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group (1999) Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: a randomized comparison. Lancet 354: 185–190CrossRef Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group (1999) Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: a randomized comparison. Lancet 354: 185–190CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Motson R (2002) Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy? Br Med J 324: 1092–1094CrossRef Motson R (2002) Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy? Br Med J 324: 1092–1094CrossRef
18.
go back to reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001) Guidance on the use of laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 18. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001) Guidance on the use of laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 18.
20.
go back to reference Quilici PJ, Greaney EM, Anderson S (2000) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair; optimal technical variations and results in 1700 cases. Am Surg 66: 848–852PubMed Quilici PJ, Greaney EM, Anderson S (2000) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair; optimal technical variations and results in 1700 cases. Am Surg 66: 848–852PubMed
21.
go back to reference Ramshaw B, Shuler FW, Jones HB (2001) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: lessons learned after 1224 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 15: 50–54PubMedCrossRef Ramshaw B, Shuler FW, Jones HB (2001) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: lessons learned after 1224 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 15: 50–54PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Stoker DL, Speilgelhalter DJ, et al. (1994) Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: randomized prospective trial. Lancet 343: 1243–1245PubMedCrossRef Stoker DL, Speilgelhalter DJ, et al. (1994) Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: randomized prospective trial. Lancet 343: 1243–1245PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wellwood J, Sculpher MJ, et al. (1998) Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for inguinal hernia; outcome and cost. Br Med J 317: 103–110 Wellwood J, Sculpher MJ, et al. (1998) Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for inguinal hernia; outcome and cost. Br Med J 317: 103–110
Metadata
Title
Day case laparoscopic herniorraphy
A NICE procedure with a long learning curve
Authors
M. Lim
C. J. O’Boyle
C. M. S. Royston
P. C. Sedman
Publication date
01-09-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 9/2006
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2265-5

Other articles of this Issue 9/2006

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2006 Go to the issue