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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
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
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 3/2019

01-06-2019 | Opioids | Original Article

Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review

Authors: B. Pokala, P. R. Armijo, L. Flores, D. Hennings, D. Oleynikov

Published in: Hernia | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Many publications have focused on single-surgeon or single-center data, comparing surgical approach in inguinal hernia repair. This study evaluated outcomes in patients who underwent open (OIHR), laparoscopic (LIHR) or robotic (RIHR) inguinal hernia repair using a national database.

Methods

The Vizient clinical database was queried using ICD-9 and ICD-10 procedure and diagnosis codes for RIHR, LIHR, and OIHR from 2013 to 2017. Elective procedures classified as minor or moderate risk severity were included. Complications, 30-day readmission, mortality, LOS, and intra-hospital opiate utilization were analyzed using IBM SPSS v.23.0.

Results

3547 patients (OIHR: N = 2413, LIHR: N = 540, RIHR: N = 594) were included in the study. Majority were male (OIHR 84.1%, LIHR 80.4%, RIHR 95.3%), ≥ 51 years (OIHR 81.5%, LIHR 81.7%, RIHR 95.3%), and Caucasian (OIHR 75.7%, LIHR 77.0%, RIHR 81.5%). RIHR had the least overall complications (0.67%) compared to LIHR (4.44%) and OIHR (3.85%), p < 0.05. OIHR had the highest postoperative infection rate (8.33%), versus LIHR (0.56%) and RIHR (0.0%), p < 0.05. OIHR had longer length of stay (3.57 ± 4.1 days) when compared to both groups (LIHR 2.2 ± 2.13 days, RIHR 1.75 ± 1.62 days), p < 0.001. OIHR had higher 30-day readmission rates (3.61%) compared to RIHR (0.84%), p = 0.001. Mortality was similar between groups (OIHR 0.21%, LIHR 0.19%, RIHR 0.17%), p = 0.081. Opiate use was higher with OIHR (96.0%), compared to both LIHR (93.1%), and RIHR (93.8%), p = 0.004.

Conclusion

RIHR outcomes were improved compared to OIHR or LIHR. OIHR had the highest rate of opiate use, there was no difference between LIHR and RIHR. Further studies are needed to determine the role of RIHR and to assess whether surgeon or patient selection contributes to outcomes.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Wara P, Asmussen T, Juul P, Strand L, Sndersen FH, Bay-Nielsen M (2011) Danish Hernia Database recommendations for the management of inguinal and femoral hernia in adults. Dan Med Bull 58:C4243
4.
Campanelli G, Bruni PG, Morlacchi A, Lombardo F, Cavalli M (2017) Primary inguinal hernia: the open repair today pros and cons. Asian J Endosc Surg 10:236–243CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mazeh H, Beglaibter N, Grinbaum R, Samet Y, Badriyyah M, Zamir O, Freund HR (2008) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair on a general surgery ward: 5 years’ experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 18:373–376CrossRef
6.
Shillcutt SD, Sanders DL, Teresa Butron-Vila M, Kingsnorth AN (2013) Cost-effectiveness of inguinal hernia surgery in northwestern Ecuador. World J Surg 37:32–41CrossRefPubMed
7.
Armijo P, Pratap A, Wang Y, Shostrom V, Oleynikov D (2017) Robotic ventral hernia repair is not superior to laparoscopic: a national database review. Surg Endosc 32:1–6
8.
McCormack K, Scott N, Go PM, Ross SJ, Grant A (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:1
9.
Schmidt L, Oberg S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J (2018) Laparoscopic repair is superior to open techniques when treating primary groin hernias in women: a nationwide register-based cohort study. Surg Endosc 33:71–78CrossRef
10.
Iraniha A, Peloquin J (2017) Long-term quality of life and outcomes following robotic assisted TAPP inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg 12:261–269CrossRefPubMed
11.
Edelman DS (2017) Robotic inguinal hernia repair. Am Surg 83:1418–1421
12.
Waite KE, Herman MA, Doyle PJ (2016) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg 10:239–244CrossRef
13.
Simorov A, Bills N, Shostrom V, Boilesen E, Oleynikov D (2014) Can surgical performance benchmarking be generalized across multiple outcomes databases: a comparison of University Health System Consortium and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Am J Surg 208:942–948CrossRefPubMed
14.
Matthews D, Neumayer L (2008) Inguinal hernia in the 21st century: an evidence-based review. Curr Probl Surg 45:261–312CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Miserez M, Peeters E, Aufenacker T, Bouillot J, Campanelli G (2014) Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 18:151–163CrossRef
17.
Chen YJ, Huynh D, Nguyen S, Chin E, Divino C, Zhang L (2017) Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-sized ventral hernias. Surg Endosc 31:1275–1279CrossRefPubMed
18.
Allison N, Tieu K, Snyder B, Pigazzi A, Wilson E (2012) Technical feasibility of robot-assisted ventral hernia repair. World J Surg 36:447–452CrossRefPubMed
19.
Shraga S, Chang E, Radvinsky D, Sugiyama G (2017) Robotic inguinal hernia repair. In: Hernia. Avid Science, Berlin, pp 2–21
20.
Rogers T, Parra-Davila E, Malcher F, Hartmann C, Mastella B, de Araújo G, Ogaya-Pinies G, Ortiz-Ortiz C, Hernandez-Cardona E, Patel V, Cavazzola L (2018) Robotic radical prostatectomy with concomitant repair of inguinal hernia: is it safe? J Robot Surg 2:325–330CrossRef
21.
Kolachalam R, Dickens E, D’Amico L, Richardson C, Rabaza J, Gamagami R, Gonzalez A (2017) Early outcomes of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a multi-institutional, retrospective study. Surg Endosc 32:229–235CrossRefPubMed
22.
Dominguez JEE, Ramos MG, Seetharamaiah R, Donkor C, Rabaza J, Gonzalez A (2016) Feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, a single-institution experience. Surg Endosc 30:4042–4048CrossRef
23.
Charles EJ, Mehaffey JH, Tache-Leon CA, Hallowell PT, Sawyer RG, Yang Z (2018) Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot? Surg Endosc 32:2131–2136CrossRefPubMed
24.
Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–114 (discussion 114–6) CrossRef
25.
Kudsi OY, McCarty JC, Paluvoi N, Mabardy AS (2017) Transition from laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective review of a single surgeon’s experience. World J Surg 41:1–7CrossRef
26.
Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC (2016) Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc 31:1–8
27.
Felix E, Harbertson N, Vartanian S (1999) Laparoscopic hernoiplasty: significant complications. Surg Endosc 13:328–331CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mathur S, Lin SS (2016) The learning curve for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a newly qualified surgeon perspective. J Surg Res 205:246–251CrossRefPubMed
29.
Gamagami R, Dickens E, Gonzalez A, D’Amico L, Richardson C, Rabaza J, Kolachalam R (2018) Open versus robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter matched analysis of clinical outcomes. Hernia 22:1–10CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review
Authors
B. Pokala
P. R. Armijo
L. Flores
D. Hennings
D. Oleynikov
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Hernia / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01934-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Hernia 3/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

State of the art: open mesh-based inguinal hernia repair

Review

Open darn repair vs open mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies

Comment

Comment to: A 12-year experience of using the Kugel procedure for adult inguinal hernias via the internal ring approach. Lin R, Lin X, Lu F et al. Hernia 2018;22:863–870

Review

Prolene hernia system versus Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis

Original Article

Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein repair vs the Valenti technique for inguinal hernia

Editorial

Editor’s corner