Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 4/2016

01-04-2016

Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Authors: Sujith Wijerathne, Narendra Agarwal, Ahmad Ramzi, Dino H. Liem, Wee B. Tan, Davide Lomanto

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The advantage of single-port total extra-peritoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair over the conventional technique is still debatable. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of TEP inguinal hernia repair using either a single-port or conventional surgical technique, in two blind randomized groups of patients.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 100 patients undergoing surgery for unilateral inguinal hernia were randomized into two groups: One group underwent conventional laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair, while the other was selected for single-port TEP repair. Primary endpoint is postoperative pain (VAS), while secondary endpoints are recurrence, chronic pain and complications.

Results

From 100 patients, 49 underwent single-port hernia TEP repair, 50 had conventional three-port TEP hernia repair, and one patient declined to participate after randomization. The two groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics and operative findings. Mean operative time was 49.1(±13.8) min in the conventional group and 54.1(±14.4) min in the single-port group (p = 0.08). Mean hospital stay was 19.7(±5.8) h in the conventional group and 20.5(±6.4) h in the single-port group (p = 0.489). No major complications and no recurrence reported at 11-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference noted in postoperative pain between the two groups at regular intervals.

Conclusions

The outcomes after laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with a single-port device are similar but not superior to the conventional technique.
Literature
1.
Dulucq JL (1992) Treatment of inguinal hernia by insertion of a subperitoneal patch under pre-peritoneoscopy. Chirurgie 118(1–2):83–85PubMed
2.
Cugura JF, Kirac I, Kulis T, Jankovic J, Beslin MB (2008) First case of single incision laparoscopic surgery for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Acta Clin Croat 47(4):249–252PubMed
3.
4.
Cugura JF, Kirac I, Kulis T, Sremac M, Ledinsky M, Beslin MB (2012) Comparison of single incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: initial experience. J Endourol 26(1):63–66CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kim JH, Lee YS, Kim JJ, Park SM (2013) Single port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty: a comparative study of short-term outcome with conventional laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty. World J Surg 37(4):746–751CrossRefPubMed
6.
Tai HC, Lin CD, Chung SD, Chueh SC, Tsai YC, Yang SS (2011) A comparative study of standard versus laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 25(9):2879–2883CrossRefPubMed
7.
Wijerathne S, Agarwal N, Ramzy A, Lomanto D (2014) A prospective randomized controlled trial to compare single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery versus conventional TEP inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 28(11):3053–3058CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tsai YC, Ho CH, Tai HC, Chung SD, Chueh SC (2013) Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 27:4684–4692CrossRefPubMed
9.
Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P (2008) Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 148(4):295–309CrossRefPubMed
10.
Miserez M, Alexandre JH, Campanelli G, Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, Pascual MH et al (2007) The European hernia society groin hernia classification: simple and easy to remember. Hernia 11(2):113–116CrossRefPubMed
11.
Liem MS, van Duyn EB, van der Graaf Y, van Vroonhoven TJ (2003) Recurrences after conventional anterior and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized comparison. Ann Surg 237(1):136–141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Langeveld HR, van’t Riet M, Weidema WF, Stassen LP, Steyerberg EW, Lange J et al (2010) Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein (the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251(5):819–824CrossRefPubMed
13.
Wright D, Paterson C, Scott N, Hair A, O’Dwyer PJ (2002) Five-year follow-up of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open groin hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 235(3):333–337CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
O’Reilly EA, Burke JP, O’Connell PR (2012) A meta-analysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Ann Surg 255(5):846–853CrossRefPubMed
15.
Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Camps J, Cornet DA, Nguyen NX, Litke BS, Annibali R et al (1995) Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy. Results of a multicenter trial. Ann Surg 221(1):3–13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Liem MS, van der Graaf Y, van Steensel CJ, Boelhouwer RU, Clevers GJ, Meijer WS et al (1997) Comparison of conventional anterior surgery and laparoscopic surgery for inguinal-hernia repair. N Engl J Med 336(22):1541–1547CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ferzli GS, Massaad A, Dysarz FA 3rd, Kopatsis A (1993) A study of 101 patients treated with extraperitoneal endoscopic laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Am Surg 59(11):707–708PubMed
18.
Kuhry E, van Veen RN, Langeveld HR, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (2007) Open or endoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair? A systematic review. Surg Endosc 21(2):161–166CrossRefPubMed
19.
Rehman H, Rao AM, Ahmed I (2011) Single incision versus conventional multi-incision appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD009022PubMed
20.
Ding J, Xia Y, Zhang ZM, Liao GQ, Pan Y, Liu S et al (2013) Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 48(5):1088–1098CrossRefPubMed
21.
Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Muirhead L, Kinross J, Paraskeva P (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26(5):1205–1213CrossRefPubMed
22.
Garg P, Thakur JD, Garg M, Menon GR (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 16(8):1618–1628CrossRefPubMed
23.
Chang SK, Wang YL, Shen L, Iyer SG, Shaik AB, Lomanto D (2013) Interim report: a randomized controlled trial comparing postoperative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 6(1):14–20CrossRefPubMed
24.
Li P, Wang DR, Wang LH, Li YK, Chen J (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery vs. multiport laparoscopic surgery for colectomy: a meta-analysis of eleven recent studies. Hepatogastroenterology 59(117):1345–1349PubMed
25.
Lau H, Lee F (2002) A prospective comparative study of needlescopic and conventional endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty. Surg Endosc 16(12):1737–1740CrossRefPubMed
26.
Goo TT, Goel R, Lawenko M, Lomanto D (2010) Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernia repair via a single port. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20(6):389–390CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kwon KH, Son BH, Han WK (2011) Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair without suprapubic port: comparison with conventional totally extraperitoneal repair. J Korean Surg Soc 80(5):319–326CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Sato H, Shimada M, Kurita N, Iwata T, Nishioka M, Morimoto S et al (2012) The safety and usefulness of the single incision, transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic technique for inguinal hernia. J Med Invest. 59(3–4):235–240CrossRefPubMed
29.
Agrawal S, Shaw A, Soon Y (2010) Single-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with the TriPort system: initial experience. Surg Endosc 24(4):952–956CrossRefPubMed
30.
Do M, Liatsikos E, Beatty J, Haefner T, Dunn I, Kallidonis P et al (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: initial experience in 10 patients. J Endourol 25(6):963–968CrossRefPubMed
31.
Buckley FP 3rd, Vassaur H, Monsivais S, Sharp NE, Jupiter D, Watson R et al (2014) Comparison of outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy and traditional three-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy at a single institution. Surg Endosc 28(1):30–35CrossRefPubMed
32.
Wakasugi M, Masuzawa T, Tei M, Omori T, Ueshima S, Tori M et al (2014) Single-incision totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: our initial 100 cases and comparison with conventional three-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Surg Today 45:606–610CrossRefPubMed
33.
de Araujo FB, Starling ES, Maricevich M, Tobias-Machado M (2014) Single site and conventional totally extraperitoneal techniques for uncomplicated inguinal hernia repair: a comparative study. J Minim Access Surg 10(4):197–201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Lai H, Li G, Xiao J, Lin Y, Lu B (2014) Single-incision laparoscopic hernioplasty versus multi-incision laparoscopic hernioplasty: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 84(3):128–136CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial
Authors
Sujith Wijerathne
Narendra Agarwal
Ahmad Ramzi
Dino H. Liem
Wee B. Tan
Davide Lomanto
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4378-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 4/2016 Go to the issue

Dynamic Manuscript

Early experience and lessons learned in a new minimally invasive esophagectomy program

OriginalPaper

Do not rush for surgery; stent placement may be an effective step for definitive treatment of initially unextractable common bile duct stones with ERCP

OriginalPaper

Endoscopic assessment 1 day after esophagectomy for predicting cervical esophagogastric anastomosis-relating complications

OriginalPaper

Room air versus carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum: effects on oxidative state, apoptosis and histology of splanchnic organs

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 colon cancer: evaluation of margin status

OriginalPaper

Objective assessment of robotic surgical skill using instrument contact vibrations