ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique is an open approach to groin hernia repair with posteriorly positioned mesh supposed to reduce recurrence rates. However, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques have similar mesh positioning with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TIPP and MIS for groin hernia repair. SOURCE: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TIPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, chronic pain, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, and hematoma. We performed a subgroup analysis of TAPP and TEP techniques separately. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 81 studies were screened and 19 were thoroughly reviewed. Six studies were included, of which two compared TIPP with TEP technique, two compared TIPP with TAPP, and two compared TIPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower recurrence rates for the TEP technique compared to TIPP (0.38% versus 1.19%; RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.11; P = 0.04). Also, we found lower seroma rates for TIPP group on the overall analysis (RR 0.21; P = 0.002). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding overall recurrence (RR 1.6; P = 0.19), chronic pain (RR 1.53; P = 0.2), SSI (RR 2.51; P = 0.47), and hematoma (RR 1.29; P = 0.76) between MIS and TIPP. No statistically significant differences were found in the subgroup analysis of TAPP technique for all the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found no differences between TIPP and MIS approaches in the overall analysis of recurrence, SSI, and chronic pain rates. Further research is needed to analyze individual techniques and draw a more precise conclusion on this subject. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID CRD42024530107, April 8, 2024.
ABSTRACT
Background: The type of mesh used in inguinal hernia repairs remains controversial. There are limited data looking at specific mesh-related complications. The objective of this study is to assess postoperative 90-day outcomes in lightweight (LW) and heavyweight (HW) anatomical mesh in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. Methods: A retrospective single-center database was queried for all adult minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs with anatomical mesh from July 2016 to March 2021. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. Results: Six hundred forty-seven minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs were performed with 423 (65.3%) using HW and 224 (24.7%) using LW mesh. There was no difference in mean body mass index between the groups (26.9 ± 4.2 kg/m2 in the LW group and 27.1 ± 4.2 kg/m2 in the HW group; P = .69). There was no difference in type of mesh fixation used in either group, with tacker being the most common. There was no difference in postoperative emergency department (ED) visit (P = .625), readmission rates (P = .562), or postoperative complications between the two groups. Fifty patients presented with seroma within 90 days. There were five recurrences in each group and only one surgical site infection in the LW within 90 days. Multivariate logistic regression was performed, and predictors of seroma formation included age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; confidence interval [CI] 1-1.04; P = .02) and hypertension (HTN) (OR 1.8; CI 1.03-3.4; P = .039). HW mesh was not associated with seroma formation (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.9; P = .895). Similarly, HW mesh was not associated with surgical site occurrences (SSO) (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.8; P = .872). HTN was associated with SSO (OR 1.74; CI 1-3.05; P = .048). Conclusion: Our study did not favor the use of LW or HW mesh when comparing postoperative complications or clinical outcomes. HW mesh was not associated with either seroma formation or SSO.
