Published in:
01-06-2015 | Original Article
A comparative study of single incision versus conventional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
Published in: Hernia | Issue 3/2015
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Over the past years, safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was well established. However, conventional laparoscopic hernia repair (CL) usually requires three working ports ranging from 5 to 10 mm, and each increasing port is associated with possible increasing morbidity and pain related to ports. This has led to the development of single incision laparoscopic hernia repair (SIL) which can further reduce the port-related morbidities and improve cosmetic outcomes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SIL using both transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally preperitoneal (TEP) approaches and compare the patients’ wound satisfaction between the two groups.
Methods
This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. We analyzed the results of patients who underwent either CL or SIL for inguinal hernia between January 2011 and July 2012 in Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital. Patients’ demographic details, type of hernia, operative time, mesh used, and post-operative complications were compared. A telephone survey was also conducted to evaluate patients’ subjective wound satisfaction.
Results
In total, 32 SIL and 35 CL procedures were performed in this period. The two groups were matched for age, sex, type of hernia and ASA grading. The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the CL group (52.6 vs. 62.6 min, p = 0.02). All SIL procedures were completed successfully without conversion to CL or open repair and post-operative complications such as wound infection, seroma, recurrence and chronic pain were also comparable between the two groups. As for the telephone survey, SIL groups’ wound is less obvious and less detectable by others as compared to CL, but on the whole both groups of patients are very satisfied with the wound outcomes. All the SIL groups would continue with their decision on SIL and 60 % of CL group would choose SIL if they had to go back in time.
Conclusion
Our results have shown that in experienced hands, SIL is feasible and as safe as CL. Further randomized trials should be performed to evaluate the clinical application of single incision TEP and TAPP.