Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Surg Endosc. 2018 Feb;32(2):627-637. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5712-9. Epub 2017 Aug 4.

Comparison of peritoneal closure versus non-closure in laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with coated mesh.

Author information

1
Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, Springfield, MA, 01199, USA. Erica.KaneMD@baystatehealth.org.
2
Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, Springfield, MA, 01199, USA.
3
Academic Affairs: Office of Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA.
4
Academic Affairs: Epidemiology/Biostatistics Research Core, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Peritoneal closure during laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair has been the standard of care to prevent bowel obstruction due to adhesions generated by contact with mesh. However, with newer coated meshes, leaving the peritoneal layer open may be safe. While many studies compare methods of peritoneal flap closure, there is a deficit of literature reporting the outcomes of non-closure.

METHODS:

A retrospective comparison of peritoneal flap closure versus non-closure during primary laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair with coated mesh was performed for all patients at Baystate Medical Center meeting inclusion criteria between January 2005 and August 2016. Primary outcome was any procedure-related adverse outcome following repair. Secondary outcomes included operative time, resolution of pre-operative pain and/or gastrointestinal symptoms, and hernia recurrence.

RESULTS:

Of 231 patients, 55 (24%) underwent peritoneal flap closure and 176 (76%) underwent non-closure. Demographic, comorbidity, and hernia characteristics were comparable between groups with the exception of obesity (p = 0.01), current smoking status (p = 0.05) and hernia side [p = 0.04 (left), 0.0003 (right)]. Mean operative time was higher in the closure group than non-closure (98.1 ± 37.1 min vs. 76.8 ± 32.9, p < 0.0001). No cases were converted to open. Average follow-up was 21.6 ± 23.8 months. Ninety-three percent of closure patients had documented resolution of pre-operative pain versus 94.0% of non-closure (p = 0.81). The closure group experienced a higher percentage of post-operative complications, though this did not reach significance (5.5 vs. 2.3%; p = 0.36). Compared to the closure group, the non-closure groups experienced similar post-operative pain (3.6 vs. 1.2%; p = 0.24) and recurrence rate (1.8 vs. 4.0%; p = 0.68). There were no bowel obstructions, surgical site infections, unplanned readmissions, or unplanned re-operations.

CONCLUSIONS:

Equivalent patient outcomes were seen for both procedure types post-operatively and during follow-up. Operative times were significantly shorter for non-closure patients. Larger study population and longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate true long-term complication rates in flap non-closure.

KEYWORDS:

Coated mesh; Hernia; Inguinal; Laparoscopic; Peritoneal flap; Transabdominal

PMID:
28779253
DOI:
10.1007/s00464-017-5712-9

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center