nach oben

Erschienen in:

08.02.2023 | Original Article

Lichtenstein versus TIPP versus TAPP versus TEP for primary inguinal hernia, a matched propensity score study on the French Club Hernie Registry

verfasst von: Romane Hurel, Leila Bouazzi, Coralie Barbe, Reza Kianmanesh, Benoît Romain, Jean-François Gillion, Yohann Renard, The Club-Hernie members

Erschienen in: Hernia | Ausgabe 5/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Groin hernia repair is one of the most frequent operation performed worldwide. Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is the most common and challenging complication after surgical repair with subsequent high socio-economic impact. The aim of this study was to compare the one-year CPIP rates between Lichtenstein, trans-inguinal pre-peritoneal (TIPP), trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) and totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) repair techniques on the French Hernia Registry.

Methods

Between 2011 and 2021, 15,161 primary groin hernia repairs with 1-year follow-up were available on the register. Using propensity score (PS) matching, matched pairs were formed. Each group was compared in pairs independently; Lichtenstein versus TIPP, TEP and TAPP, TIPP versus TEP and TAPP and finally TEP versus TAPP.

Results

After PS matching analysis, Lichtenstein group showed disadvantage over TIPP, TAPP and TEP groups with significantly more CPIP at one year (15.2% vs 9.6%, p < 0.0001; 15.9% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.0001 and 16.1% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.002, respectively). The 1-year CPIP rates were similar comparing TIPP versus TAPP and TEP groups (9.3% vs 10.5%, p = 0.19 and 9.8% vs 11.8%, p = 0.05, respectively). There was significantly less CPIP rate after TAPP versus TEP repair (1.00% vs 11.9%, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

This register-based study confirms the higher CPIP risk after Lichtenstein repair compared to the pre-peritoneal repair techniques. TIPP leads to comparable CPIP rates than TAPP and TEP repairs.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M et al (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13:343–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-009-0529-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22:1–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1668-xCrossRef

Alfieri S, Amid PK, Campanelli G et al (2011) International guidelines for prevention and management of post-operative chronic pain following inguinal hernia surgery. Hernia 15:239–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0798-9CrossRefPubMed

Powell R, Johnston M, Smith WC et al (2012) Psychological risk factors for chronic post-surgical pain after inguinal hernia repair surgery: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Pain 16:600–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.08.010CrossRefPubMed

Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T et al (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25:2773–2843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1799-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Koning GG, Keus F, Koeslag L et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of chronic pain after the transinguinal preperitoneal technique compared with Lichtenstein’s method for inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 99:1365–1373. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8862CrossRefPubMed

Bökkerink WJV, Koning GG, Malagic D et al (2019) Long-term results from a randomized comparison of open transinguinal preperitoneal hernia repair and the Lichtenstein method (TULIP trial). Br J Surg 106:856–861. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11178CrossRefPubMed

Sharma P, Boyers D, Scott N et al (2015) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 19:1–142. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19920CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Suwa K, Onda S, Yasuda J et al (2021) Single-blind randomized clinical trial of transinguinal preperitoneal repair using self-expanding mesh patch vs. Lichtenstein repair for adult male patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Hernia 25:173–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02301-8CrossRefPubMed

10.

El-Dhuwaib Y, Corless D, Emmett C et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: a longitudinal cohort study. Surg Endosc 27:936–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2538-3CrossRefPubMed

11.

Demange MK, Fregni F (2011) Limits to clinical trials in surgical areas. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 66:159–161. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1807-59322011000100027CrossRefPubMed

12.

Grose E, Wilson S, Barkun J et al (2020) Use of propensity score methodology in contemporary high-impact surgical literature. J Am Coll Surg 230:101-112.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.10.003CrossRefPubMed

13.

Reinpold W (2017) Risk factors of chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Innov Surg Sci 2:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Mattei A (2009) Estimating and using propensity score in presence of missing background data: an application to assess the impact of childbearing on wellbeing. Stat Methods Appl 18:257–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-007-0086-0CrossRef

15.

Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46:399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786CrossRef

16.

McCaffrey DF, Griffin BA, Almirall D et al (2013) A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Stat Med 32:3388–3414. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5753CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Austin PC (2014) A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med 33:1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6004CrossRefPubMed

18.

Austin PC (2011) Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 10:150–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.433CrossRefPubMed

19.

Austin PC (2009) Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 28:3083–3107. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Rubin DB (2021) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924688. Accessed 23 Aug 2021

21.

Hori T, Yasukawa D (2021) Fascinating history of groin hernias: comprehensive recognition of anatomy, classic considerations for herniorrhaphy, and current controversies in hernioplasty. World J Methodol 11:160–186. https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Andresen K, Rosenberg J (2018) Management of chronic pain after hernia repair. J Pain Res 11:675–681. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S127820CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Köckerling F, Hoffmann H, Adolf D et al (2020) Female sex as independent risk factor for chronic pain following elective incisional hernia repair: registry-based, propensity score-matched comparison. Hernia 24:567–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02089-2CrossRefPubMed

24.

Romain B, Fabacher T, Ortega-Deballon P et al (2021) Longitudinal cohort study on preoperative pain as a risk factor for chronic postoperative inguinal pain after groin hernia repair at 2-year follow-up. Hernia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02404-wCrossRefPubMed

25.

Yang X-F, Liu J-L (2016) Anatomy essentials for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Ann Transl Med 4:372. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.09.32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Bilsel Y, Abci I (2012) The search for ideal hernia repair; mesh materials and types. Int J Surg 10:317–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.05.002CrossRefPubMed

27.

Gillion JF, Soler M, Chollet JM, Club-Hernie members (2021) A registry-based 2-year follow-up comparative study of two meshes used in transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) groin hernia repair. Langenbecks Arch Surg 406:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01993-xCrossRefPubMed

28.

Hoffmann H, Walther D, Bittner R et al (2020) Smaller inguinal hernias are independent risk factors for developing chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP): a registry-based multivariable analysis of 57, 999 patients. Ann Surg 271:756–764. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003065CrossRefPubMed

29.

Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B et al (2003) Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 90:1479–1492. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4301CrossRefPubMed

30.

O’Reilly EA, Burke JP, O’Connell PR (2012) A meta-analysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Ann Surg 255:846–853. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824e96cfCrossRefPubMed

31.

Chung RS, Rowland DY (1999) Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic vs conventional inguinal hernia repairs. Surg Endosc 13:689–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901074CrossRefPubMed

32.

Grant A, Go P, Fingerhut A et al (2000) Laparoscopic compared with open methods of groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 87:860–867

33.

Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R (2005) Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19:188–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9126-0CrossRefPubMed

34.

Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G et al (2019) Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia 23:473–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01964-2CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lyu Y, Cheng Y, Wang B et al (2020) Comparison of endoscopic surgery and Lichtenstein repair for treatment of inguinal hernias: A network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 99:e19134. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019134CrossRefPubMed

36.

Bullen NL, Massey LH, Antoniou SA et al (2019) Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia 23:461–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01989-7CrossRefPubMed

37.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015CrossRefPubMed

38.

Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490CrossRefPubMed

39.

Bragais LCG, Faylona JMV (2020) Adherence to international guidelines for Groin Hernia Management: a retrospective cross-sectional study in a tertiary government training hospital. Hernia 24:969–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02207-5CrossRefPubMed

40.

Kennedy-Martin T, Curtis S, Faries D et al (2015) A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results. Trials 16:495. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1023-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Bhide A, Shah PS, Acharya G (2018) A simplified guide to randomized controlled trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97:380–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13309CrossRefPubMed

42.

Niebuhr H, Wegner F, Hukauf M et al (2018) What are the influencing factors for chronic pain following TAPP inguinal hernia repair: an analysis of 20,004 patients from the Herniamed Registry. Surg Endosc 32:1971–1983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5893-2CrossRefPubMed

43.

Kyle-Leinhase I, Köckerling F, Jørgensen LN et al (2018) Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE project. Hernia 22:561–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1724-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Köckerling F, Maneck M, Günster C et al (2020) Comparing routine administrative data with registry data for assessing quality of hospital care in patients with inguinal hernia. Hernia 24:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02009-4CrossRefPubMed

45.

Prasad A, Shin M, Carey RM et al (2020) Propensity score matching in otolaryngologic literature: a systematic review and critical appraisal. PLoS ONE 15:0244423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244423CrossRef

46.

Yao XI, Wang X, Speicher PJ et al (2017) Reporting and guidelines in propensity score analysis: a systematic review of cancer and cancer surgical studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Willaert W, De Bacquer D, Rogiers X et al (2012) Open preperitoneal techniques versus lichtenstein repair for elective inguinal hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008034.pub2CrossRefPubMed

48.

Sajid MS, Craciunas L, Singh KK et al (2013) Open transinguinal preperitoneal mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a targeted systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 1:127–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/got002CrossRefPubMed

49.

Li J, Ji Z, Li Y (2014) Comparison of laparoscopic versus open procedure in the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of the results. Am J Surg 207:602–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.05.008CrossRefPubMed

50.

Köckerling F, Bittner R, Kofler M et al (2019) Lichtenstein versus total extraperitoneal patch plasty versus transabdominal patch plasty technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a registry-based, propensity score-matched comparison of 57,906 patients. Ann Surg 269:351–357. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002541CrossRefPubMed

51.

Belyansky I, Tsirline VB, Klima DA et al (2011) Prospective, comparative study of postoperative quality of life in TEP, TAPP, and modified Lichtenstein repairs. Ann Surg 254:709–714. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182359d07. (discussion 714–715)CrossRefPubMed

52.

S C, S van C, O U et al (2021) Quality of life after open versus laparoscopic preperitoneal mesh repair for unilateral inguinal hernias. Asian J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.03.014

53.

Haroon M, Al-Sahaf O, Eguare E et al (2019) Postoperative outcomes and patient’s satisfaction after hybrid TIPP with UHS and TEP repair for inguinal hernias: a single-centre retrospective comparative study. Chirurgia (Bucur) 114:57–66. https://doi.org/10.21614/chirurgia.114.1.57CrossRefPubMed

54.

Aitola P, Airo I, Matikainen M (1998) Laparoscopic versus open preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomised trial. Ann Chir Gynaecol 87:22–25PubMed

55.

Romain B, Gillion J-F, Ortega-Deballon P et al (2018) Patient’s satisfaction at 2 years after groin hernia repair: any difference according to the technique? Hernia 22:801–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1796-yCrossRefPubMed

56.

Pélissier EP, Ngo P, Gayet B (2011) Transinguinal preperitoneal patch (TIPP) under local anesthesia with sedation. Am Surg 77:1681–1684CrossRefPubMed

57.

Gillion J-F, Chollet J-M (2013) Chronic pain and quality of life (QoL) after transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) inguinal hernia repair using a totally extraperitoneal, parietalized, Polysoft ® memory ring patch : a series of 622 hernia repairs in 525 patients. Hernia 17:683–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1121-8CrossRefPubMed

58.

Rives J, Lardennois B, Flament JB, Convers G (1973) The Dacron mesh sheet, treatment of choice of inguinal hernias in adults. Apropos of 183 cases. Chirurgie 99:564–575PubMed

59.

Kler A, Sekhon N, Antoniou GA, Satyadas T (2021) Totally extra-peritoneal repair versus trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair for the laparoscopic surgical management of sportsman’s hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 35:5399–5413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08554-3CrossRefPubMed

60.

Goksoy B, Yilmaz G, Azamat IF, et al (2021) Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair-TAPP versus TEP: Results of 301 Consecutive Patients. Surg Technol Int 39:sti39/1427

61.

Chen L-S, Chen W-C, Kang Y-N et al (2019) Effects of transabdominal preperitoneal and totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an update systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 33:418–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6314-xCrossRefPubMed

62.

Gass M, Banz VM, Rosella L et al (2012) TAPP or TEP? Population-based analysis of prospective data on 4,552 patients undergoing endoscopic inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 36:2782–2786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1760-4CrossRefPubMed

63.

Gass M, Scheiwiller A, Sykora M, Metzger J (2016) TAPP or TEP for recurrent inguinal hernia? population-based analysis of prospective data on 1309 patients undergoing endoscopic repair for recurrent inguinal hernia. World J Surg 40:2348–2352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3545-7CrossRefPubMed

64.

Wei FX, Zhang YC, Han W et al (2015) Transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) for laparoscopic hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25:375–383. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000123CrossRefPubMed

65.

Kukleta JF (2019) Why I prefer TAPP repair for uncomplicated unilateral groin hernia in adults. Hernia 23:617–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01938-4CrossRefPubMed

66.

Rodha MS, Meena SP, Premi K et al (2022) Pain after transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) or totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique for unilateral inguinal hernia: a randomized controlled trial. Cureus 14:e24582. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24582CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Lichtenstein versus TIPP versus TAPP versus TEP for primary inguinal hernia, a matched propensity score study on the French Club Hernie Registry
verfasst von: Romane Hurel
Leila Bouazzi
Coralie Barbe
Reza Kianmanesh
Benoît Romain
Jean-François Gillion
Yohann Renard
The Club-Hernie members
Publikationsdatum: 08.02.2023
Verlag: Springer Paris
Erschienen in: Hernia / Ausgabe 5/2023
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Elektronische ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-023-02737-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

17.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Sie sei „ethisch geboten“, meint Gesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach: mehr Transparenz über die Qualität von Klinikbehandlungen. Um sie abzubilden, lässt er gegen den Widerstand vieler Länder einen virtuellen Klinik-Atlas freischalten.

Was nützt die Kraniektomie bei schwerer tiefer Hirnblutung?

17.05.2024 Hirnblutung Nachrichten

Eine Studie zum Nutzen der druckentlastenden Kraniektomie nach schwerer tiefer supratentorieller Hirnblutung deutet einen Nutzen der Operation an. Für überlebende Patienten ist das dennoch nur eine bedingt gute Nachricht.

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

15.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Gesundheitsminister Lauterbach hat die vom Bundeskabinett beschlossene Klinikreform verteidigt. Kritik an den Plänen kommt vom Marburger Bund. Und in den Ländern wird über den Gang zum Vermittlungsausschuss spekuliert.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Lichtenstein versus TIPP versus TAPP versus TEP for primary inguinal hernia, a matched propensity score study on the French Club Hernie Registry