TY - JOUR

T1 - Surgical approach for recurrent inguinal hernias

T2 - a Nationwide Cohort Study

AU - Öberg, S

AU - Andresen, K

AU - Rosenberg, J

PY - 2016/12

Y1 - 2016/12

N2 - Purpose: Guidelines recommend that the reoperation of a recurrent inguinal hernia should be by the opposite approach (anterior–posterior) than the primary repair. However, the level of evidence supporting the guidelines is partially low. The purpose of this study was to compare re-reoperation rates between repairs performed according to the guidelines with the ones performed against it. Methods: This cohort study was based on the Danish Hernia Database, including 4344 patients with two inguinal hernia repairs in the same groin. Four groups were compared as follows: Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein vs. Lichtenstein–Laparoscopy, and Laparoscopy–Laparoscopy vs. Laparoscopy–Lichtenstein. The outcome was re-reoperation rates, which were compared by crude rates, cumulated rates, and hazard ratios. Results: There was no difference in the re-reoperation rates when the primary repair was laparoscopic, regardless of the type of reoperation. However, Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein had a significantly higher re-reoperation rate compared with Lichtenstein–Laparoscopy (crude rate 8.7 vs. 3.1 %, p value <0.0005; Hazard Ratio 2.46, 95 % CI 1.76–3.43). Further analysis showed that the higher risk of re-reoperation for Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein was only seen if the primary hernia was medial. Conclusions: A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary medial hernia should be reoperated with a laparoscopic repair. A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary lateral hernia can be reoperated with either a Lichtenstein or a laparoscopic repair according to surgeon’s choice. For a primary laparoscopic operation, the method of repair of a recurrent hernia did not affect the re-reoperation rate.

AB - Purpose: Guidelines recommend that the reoperation of a recurrent inguinal hernia should be by the opposite approach (anterior–posterior) than the primary repair. However, the level of evidence supporting the guidelines is partially low. The purpose of this study was to compare re-reoperation rates between repairs performed according to the guidelines with the ones performed against it. Methods: This cohort study was based on the Danish Hernia Database, including 4344 patients with two inguinal hernia repairs in the same groin. Four groups were compared as follows: Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein vs. Lichtenstein–Laparoscopy, and Laparoscopy–Laparoscopy vs. Laparoscopy–Lichtenstein. The outcome was re-reoperation rates, which were compared by crude rates, cumulated rates, and hazard ratios. Results: There was no difference in the re-reoperation rates when the primary repair was laparoscopic, regardless of the type of reoperation. However, Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein had a significantly higher re-reoperation rate compared with Lichtenstein–Laparoscopy (crude rate 8.7 vs. 3.1 %, p value <0.0005; Hazard Ratio 2.46, 95 % CI 1.76–3.43). Further analysis showed that the higher risk of re-reoperation for Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein was only seen if the primary hernia was medial. Conclusions: A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary medial hernia should be reoperated with a laparoscopic repair. A primary Lichtenstein repair of a primary lateral hernia can be reoperated with either a Lichtenstein or a laparoscopic repair according to surgeon’s choice. For a primary laparoscopic operation, the method of repair of a recurrent hernia did not affect the re-reoperation rate.

KW - Guidelines

KW - Inguinal hernia

KW - Laparoscopic repair

KW - Lichtenstein

KW - Re-reoperation rate

KW - Type of hernia

U2 - 10.1007/s10029-016-1531-5

DO - 10.1007/s10029-016-1531-5

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 27604381

AN - SCOPUS:84986276571

VL - 20

SP - 777

EP - 782

JO - Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery

JF - Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery

SN - 1265-4906

IS - 6

ER -