Prospective, randomized and controlled study of mesh displacement after laparoscopic inguinal repair: fixation versus no fixation of mesh.

INTRODUCTION: Repair of inguinal hernia is one of the most common elective operations performed in general surgery practice. Mesh hernia repair became the gold standard because of its low recurrence rate in comparison with non-tension-free repair. Laparoscopic approach seems to have potential advantages over open techniques, including faster recovery and reduced acute and chronic pain rate. Laparoscopic mesh fixation is usually performed using staples, which is associated with higher cost and risk for chronic pain. Recently, the role of mesh fixation has been questioned by several surgeons. AIM: To evaluate mesh displacement in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair comparing mesh fixation with no fixation. METHODS: From January 2012 to May 2014, 60 consecutive patients with unilateral inguinal hernia were randomized into two groups: control group--10 patients underwent totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair with mesh fixation; NO FIX group-50 patients underwent TEP repair with no mesh fixation. Mesh was marked with three 3-mm surgical clips at its medial inferior, medial superior and lateral inferior corners. Mesh displacement was measured by comparing an initial X-ray, performed in the immediate postoperative period, with a second X-ray obtained 30 days later. RESULTS: The mean displacement of all three clips in control group was 0.1-0.35 cm (range 0-1.2 cm), while in NO FIX group was 0.1-0.3 cm (range 0-1.3 cm). The overall displacement of control and NO FIX group did not show any difference (p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Fixation of the mesh for TEP repair is unnecessary. TEP repair with no mesh fixation is safe and is not associated with increased risk of mesh displacement.

Laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty after radical prostatectomy: is it safe? Prospective clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Despite inguinal hernia repair being one of the most common elective operations performed in general surgical practice, there are many controversies including indications for repair and selection of the surgical technique. In recent years, laparoscopic repair has gained wider acceptance because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications and less chronic pain when compared with conventional approaches with similar recurrence rate. However, patients with lower abdominal surgery are contraindicated for laparoscopic approach. There are few studies that evaluated whether patients who have been subjected to radical prostatectomy might be subjected to laparoscopic hernia repair with the same benefits as those without previous radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Between March 2010 and March 2013, 20 consecutive patients, who had been subjected to prior radical prostatectomy, underwent laparoscopic transabdominal inguinal repair and were followed prospectively. Surgical procedure was performed using a standard technique. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 67.5 min. There was only one (5%) intraoperative minor complication, an injury to the inferior epigastric vessels, which was managed by clipping of the vessels. There were no major postoperative complications. After 24 h and on the seventh postoperative day, 85 and 90% of patients had no pain or only complained of discomfort, respectively. Nine patients (45%) did not need any analgesics postoperatively. The mean time to return to leisure activities and to work was 3.1 and 5.6 days, respectively. There was no conversion to open surgery. All patients were discharged within 24 h. After a mean follow-up of 14 months, none of the patients presented recurrence. CONCLUSION: TAPP after prostatectomy is safe and effective. It seems that patients undergoing laparoscopic repair after radical prostatic resection have the same benefits as those without prostatectomy.