Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgical Endoscopy
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2016

Open Access 17.02.2016

When is mesh fixation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair necessary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases

verfasst von: F. Mayer, H. Niebuhr, M. Lechner, A. Dinnewitzer, G. Köhler, M. Hukauf, R. H. Fortelny, R. Bittner, F. Köckerling

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 10/2016

insite
INHALT
download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN

Abstract

Whereas for TEP the guidelines do not recommend mesh fixation on the basis of meta-analyses regardless of the defect size, for TAPP mesh fixation can be omitted only up to a defect size of 3 cm because of the paucity of studies on this topic. Hence, this study now seeks to explore this subject on the basis of prospective data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry. In the period September 01, 2009, to January 31, 2014, 11,228 male patients were operated on with the TAPP technique for a primary unilateral inguinal hernia and were followed up for 1 year. Mesh fixation was used for 7422 (66.1 %) of these patients and no mesh fixation for 3806 patients (33.9 %). Unadjusted analysis did not find any significant difference in the recurrence rate (0.88 % with fixation vs. 1.1 % without fixation; p = 0.259). Multivariable analysis of all potential influence factors (age, ASA, BMI, risk factors, defect size, mesh fixation, localization of defect, mesh size) did not identify any factor that impacted recurrence on 1-year follow-up. Only for medial and combined defect localization versus lateral localization was a highly significant effect identified (p < 0.001). With mesh fixation and larger mesh size, it was possible to significantly reduce the recurrence rate for larger medial hernias in this series (p = 0.046). For TAPP repair of an inguinal hernia, mesh fixation is not necessary in a significant number of patients. Patients with a medial and combined hernia are at higher risk of recurrence. In the patient series analyzed, it was possible to significantly reduce the recurrence rate with mesh fixation and larger mesh size for medial defects.
Hinweise
F. Mayer and H. Niebuhr have contributed equally to the publication.
The longstanding standard practice for TAPP was to use mesh fixation with tackers to prevent recurrence [1]. But atraumatic mesh fixation fibrin sealants are being increasingly employed to prevent chronic pain in the wake of traumatic fixation methods [2]. Numerous studies have attested to the excellent results in terms of the recurrence rate achieved with fibrin sealants for atraumatic mesh fixation [3‐6]. Comparative studies then explored, in particular for the total extraperitoneal patchplasty (TEP), whether mesh fixation could be completely dispensed with [7, 8]. In the guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia of the International Endohernia Society (IEHS), a statement with level of evidence 1 B pointed out that fixation and non-fixation of the mesh were associated with equally low recurrence rates in both TAPP and TEP [9]. However, in most studies the hernia opening was small (<3 cm) or not measured [9]. Therefore, the guidelines recommended that when using TAPP or TEP techniques non-fixation could be considered for types L I, II, and M I, II hernias (EHS classification) [9]. For TAPP and TEP repair of big defects (L III, M III), the mesh should be fixed [9]. In an update of the Guidelines of the International Endohernia Society, ten new studies with evidence level 1 have been included. For TEP, with evidence level 1 A, these stated that fixation and non-fixation of the mesh in TEP were associated with an equal risk of recurrence [10]. For TAPP, the recommendations remained unchanged. Hence, in the case of TAPP it remained unclear whether mesh fixation was needed to prevent recurrence, at least for defect sizes >3 cm (EHS classification L III, M III). Therefore, this paper now seeks to explore this subject on the basis of prospective data of the Herniamed Hernia Registry.

Patients and methods

As of March, 19, 2015, 426 participating hospitals and office-based surgeons mainly from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland had entered prospective data into the multicenter internet-based Herniamed Hernia Registry on their patients who had undergone hernia surgery [11]. This present study analyzed the prospective data collected for all male patients who had been operated on with an endoscopic TAPP technique for repair of a primary unilateral inguinal hernia in the period September 01, 2009, up to and including January 31, 2014. On 1-year follow-up, the general practitioner and patients were asked by questionnaire about any recurrences. Only those patients for whom 1-year follow-up results were available were included in the analysis. Other inclusion criteria included: age >16 years and medial/lateral/combined types of inguinal hernia based on the EHS classification [12]. In total, 11,228 patients were included in uni- and multivariate analysis for investigation of the impact of mesh fixation as well as of other potential influence factors impacting onset of a recurrence during the 1-year follow-up of TAPP operation. Details of all enrolled patients regarding the documented hernia defect size are given in Table 1 and of the fixation method in Table 2. During the observation period, 7422 patients (66.1 %) were operated on while using mesh fixation and 3806 patients (33.9 %) without mesh fixation.
Table 1
Distribution of defect size and fixation/non-fixation
 
Size of defect
Total
I (<1.5 cm)
II (1.5–3 cm)
III (>3 cm)
 
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Mesh fixation
852
56.76
4652
62.91
1918
82.25
7422
66.10
No mesh fixation
649
43.24
2743
37.09
414
17.75
3806
33.90
Total
1501
100.00
7395
100.00
2332
100.00
11,228
100.00
Table 2
Distribution of defect size in the group with mesh fixation and fixation type
 
Size of defect
Total
I (<1.5 cm)
II (1.5–3 cm)
III (>3 cm)
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Type of fixation
 Suture
121
14.20
760
16.34
446
23.25
1327
17.88
 Tacker
393
46.13
2219
47.70
956
49.84
3568
48.07
 Glue
331
38.85
1607
34.54
468
24.40
2406
32.42
 Combination
7
0.82
66
1.42
48
2.50
121
1.63
Total
852
100.00
4652
100.00
1918
100.00
7422
100.00
All analyses were performed with the software SAS 9.2 (SAS institute Inc., Cary, NY, USA) and intentionally calculated to a full significance level of 5 %, i.e., they were not corrected in respect of multiple tests, and each p value ≤ 0.05 represents a significant result. Unadjusted analyses were carried out to analyze how any individual influence variable affected an outcome parameter. For categorical target (outcome) variables, Fisher’s exact test was applied. For continuous target variables that followed the normal distribution, the robust t test (Satterthwaite) was used.
To eliminate the effect of any confounders arising from different characteristics related to the patient or surgical technique, the results of unadjusted analysis were verified once again in multivariable analysis. In addition to fixation (yes/no), it was also possible to simultaneously review all the other influence factors.
The binary regression model for dichotomous target variables was used to identify the influence of the various factors in multivariable analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals based on the Wald test are given for estimates. For influence variables with more than two categories, one of these values was used in each case as a reference category. For the continuous variable age (years), the 10-year odds ratio is given, for BMI (kg/m2) a five-point odds ratio, and for mesh size the ten-point odds ratio. The results are sorted on the basis of influence and presented in tabular form.

Results

Unadjusted results

Unadjusted analysis of the groups compared, i.e., TAPP with versus without mesh fixation, revealed, in some cases, significant differences in the patient characteristics and hernia findings (Table 3). The patients in the mesh fixation group were significantly older (57.4 years ± 14.8 vs. 54.4 years ± 15.7 [mean ± STD], p < 0.001), and larger meshes were used (151.1 cm2 ± 19.3 vs. 145.8 cm2 ± 15.6 [mean ± STD], p < 0.001). For large hernia defects (EHS III), the mesh was fixed significantly more often (82.2 % with mesh fixation vs. 17.8 % without mesh fixation) (Table 1). Likewise, for a medial hernia the implanted mesh was fixed significantly more often (30.8 % with mesh fixation vs. 24.9 % without mesh fixation; p < 0.001) (Table 3). A clear difference was identified between the two groups with regard to the presence of at least one risk factor (p = 0.011). A large proportion, at 25.8 %, of patients without mesh fixation had at least one relevant risk factor compared with those without mesh fixation, at 23.6 % (p = 0.001). That was also true for nicotine abuse (12.4 % without mesh fixation vs. 8.7 % with mesh fixation; p < 0.001).
Table 3
Demographic and surgery-related data
 
Mesh fixation
No mesh fixation
p
Age (years)
Mean ± STD
57.4 ± 14.8
54.4 ± 15.7
<0.001
BMI (kg/m²)
Mean ± STD
25.9 ± 3.4
25.9 ± 3.3
0.573
Mesh size (cm²)
Mean ± STD
151.1 ± 19.3
145.8 ± 15.6
<0.001
 
n (7422)
%
n (3806)
%
p
ASA
 I
2601
35.04
1282
33.68
0.027
 II
3994
53.81
2037
53.52
 III/IV
827
11.14
487
12.80
Defect size (EHS)
 I (<1.5 cm)
852
11.48
649
17.05
<0.001
 II (1.5–3 cm)
4652
62.68
2743
72.07
 III (>3 cm)
1918
25.84
414
10.88
Localization of defect (EHS)
 Medial (M)
2285
30.79
948
24.91
<0.001
 Lateral (L)
4477
60.32
2298
60.38
 Combined (C)
660
8.89
560
14.71
Risk factors
Overall
 Yes
1749
23.57
980
25.75
0.011
 No
5673
76.43
2826
74.25
COPD
 Yes
321
4.32
196
5.15
0.051
 No
7101
95.68
3610
94.85
Diabetes
 Yes
318
4.28
164
4.31
0.961
 No
7104
95.72
3642
95.69
Aortic aneurysm
 Yes
22
0.30
9
0.24
0.705
 No
7400
99.70
3797
99.76
Immunosuppression
 Yes
34
0.46
14
0.37
0.544
 No
7388
99.54
3792
99.63
Corticoids
 Yes
50
0.67
23
0.60
0.711
 No
7372
99.33
3783
99.40
Smoking
 Yes
643
8.66
470
12.35
<.001
 No
6779
91.34
3336
87.65
Coagulopathy
 Yes
74
1.00
37
0.97
1.000
 No
7348
99.00
3769
99.03
Antiplatelet medication
 Yes
525
7.07
206
5.41
<0.001
 No
6897
92.93
3600
94.59
Cumarin medication
 Yes
133
1.79
52
1.37
0.100
 No
7289
98.21
3754
98.63
Demographic parameters (Table 3) are demonstrated in relation to fixation/non-fixation and include the age of the patients (years), BMI (kg/m2), size of the mesh implant (cm2), ASA score (I–IV), size of the hernia defect (EHS I–III), localization of the hernia defect (medial-M/lateral-L/combined-C; EHS classification), and hernia-specific risk factors
Unadjusted analysis of the relationship between mesh fixation and non-fixation for TAPP did not reveal any significant difference in the recurrence rate on 1-year follow-up (Table 4). The recurrence rate was 0.9 % in the mesh fixation group and 1.1 % in the non-fixation group (p = 0.259).
Table 4
Unadjusted analysis of the recurrence rates on 1-year follow-up
 
Mesh fixation
No mesh fixation
p
 
n
%
n
%
Recurrent hernia (1-year follow-up: 100 %)
 Yes
65
0.88
42
1.10
0.259
 No
7357
99.12
3764
98.90
 

Multivariable analysis

In this multivariable analysis (Table 5), all potential influence factors were reviewed with regard to onset of a recurrence. No relevant influence was identified for mesh fixation compared with non-fixation (p = 0.399). That was also true for the defect size (p = 0.383), with no significant difference observed on comparing defect sizes >3 cm (EHS classification III) with sizes <1.5 cm (EHS classification I) and 1.5–3 cm (EHS classification II). Nor did the mesh size have any significant impact on onset of recurrence. For the patient-related influence factors such as age, ASA score, BMI value, the risk factors COPD, and smoking as well as the other risk factors, multivariable analysis did not identify any effect on onset of recurrence. The only factor that had a highly significant impact on recurrence was hernia localization (p < 0.001). Whereas a lateral hernia was associated with a lower probability of onset of recurrence, a medial inguinal hernia and a combined hernia with a medial portion presented a highly significantly higher risk for onset of recurrence (p < 0.001). With a prevalence of 0.9 % for the entire patient collective, this would correspond to five recurrences for every 1000 operations of hernias with lateral EHS localization compared with 11 recurrences for patients with medial EHS localization. Hence, medial and combined hernias constitute a highly significant risk factor for onset of recurrence following TAPP, but that was not true for patient-related factors, hernia size, and mesh non-fixation.
Table 5
Multivariable analysis of recurrence (model fit: p = 0.004)
Parameter
p value
Variables
OR
95 %-CI
Localization of defect (EHS)
<0.001
Combined versus medial
1.137
0.656
1.970
Lateral versus medial
0.463
0.303
0.707
Risk factors: COPD/smoking
0.097
Yes versus no
0.556
0.278
1.111
BMI (five-point OR)
0.109
 
1.240
0.953
1.613
Size of mesh (ten-point OR)
0.192
 
0.929
0.832
1.038
Size of defect (EHS)
0.383
I (<1.5 cm) versus III (>3 cm)
1.330
0.694
2.546
  
II (1.5–3 cm) versus III (>3 cm)
0.914
0.558
1.499
Fixation of mesh
0.399
No fixation versus fixation
1.194
0.791
1.800
Risk factors (others)a
0.408
Yes versus no
1.269
0.721
2.234
ASA
0.720
II versus I
1.106
0.683
1.791
III/IV versus I
1.352
0.650
2.812
Age [10-year OR]
0.869
 
1.013
0.868
1.183
aRisk factors (others): immunosuppression, antiplatelet medication, coagulopathy, diabetes, corticoids, anticoagulation, aortic aneurysm

Subgroup analysis

If, in view of the results of multivariable analysis, one compares the recurrence rates in unadjusted analysis in relation to the EHS localization, highly significant differences unfavorable to medial and combined hernias are seen (Table 6). If one then checks the role of fixation in the medial inguinal hernia group, which is at higher risk of recurrence, one notes that it was possible to significantly reduce the recurrence rate with mesh fixation (Table 7). No significant difference was found in the recurrence rate between the various fixation techniques (tacker, glue, suture, combination) (Table 8). In addition, where mesh fixation was used to repair medial inguinal hernias, a significantly larger mesh size was used (Table 9). Besides, analysis of the meshes used for at least 5 % of medial inguinal hernias demonstrated significant differences (Table 10). For example, one notable finding was that in the group with no mesh fixation a greater number of self-adhesive, titanized, and 3D standard meshes were used (Table 10). Since the medial sac reduction is not documented in the Herniamed Registry, no conclusions on its implications can be drawn from the data presented here.
Table 6
Comparision of recurrence rates depending on EHS localization
 
Medial
Lateral
Combined
p
 
n
%
n
%
n
%
 
Recurrence
 Yes
44
1.36
44
0.65
19
1.56
<0.001
 No
3190
98.64
6732
99.35
1201
1.56
 
Table 7
Comparision of recurrence rates in TAPP with and without mesh fixation in medial inguinal hernias
 
Mesh fixation
No mesh fixation
p
 
n
%
n
%
 
Recurrence
 Yes
25
1.09
19
2.00
0.046
 No
2260
98.91
929
98.00
Table 8
Comparision of recurrence rates in TAPP with mesh fixation depending on type of fixation in medial inguinal hernias
 
Suture
Tacker
Glue
Combined
p
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
 
Recurrence
 Yes
4
0.97
16
1.34
5
0.79
0
0
0.746
 No
407
99.03
1182
98.66
627
99.21
44
100.00
 
Table 9
Comparision of mesh sizes in TAPP with and without mesh fixation in medial inguinal hernias
  
Fixation
p
Mesh fixation (n = 2285)
No Mesh fixation (n = 948)
Mesh size (cm2)
Mean ± STD
151.0 ± 21.1
145.2 ± 19.0
<0.001
Table 10
Comparision of meshes used in TAPP with and without mesh fixation in medial inguinal hernias
 
Mesh fixation
No mesh fixation
p
 
n
%
n
%
Type of meshes
 Other <5 %
1079
47.22
416
43.88
<0.001
 Ultrapro
604
26.43
80
8.44
 Parietene ProGrip
6
0.26
186
19.62
 TiMesh light
184
8.05
107
11.29
 3DMax Light Mesh
61
2.67
135
14.24
 Optilene Mesh LP
351
15.36
24
2.53

Discussion

This present analysis of data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry compared the recurrence rates on 1-year follow-up in respect of mesh fixation versus non-fixation in TAPP. Univariable analysis did not find any significant difference between these two parameters. However, since there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of their demographic and surgery-related data, multivariable analysis was performed to identify the influence factors that significantly impacted the recurrence rate on 1-year follow-up. The latter revealed that for TAPP, too, mesh fixation did not have any relevant impact on the recurrence rate regardless of the defect size. A similar conclusion was reported by a prospective randomized trial that compared 273 TAPP operations with mesh fixation versus 263 without mesh fixation [13].
Nor did multivariable analysis find any evidence that age, ASA score, BMI value, or patient-related risk factors exerted any influence on onset of recurrence. Here it must be pointed out that unlike one systematic review [14], no effect on recurrence rate was identified for patients with either COPD or nicotine abuse.
The only highly significant factor impacting onset of recurrence following TAPP for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair in men was a medial or combined hernia based on the EHS classification. That finding was also confirmed in the systematic review by Burcharth et al. [14] which found that a direct inguinal hernia was found to be a risk factor for recurrence with a pooled RR of 1.91 (95 % CI 1.62–2.36; p < 0.001).
Unlike a lateral inguinal hernia, where the peritoneal hernia sac is removed from the inguinal canal and the inguinal canal closes curtain-like, additional surgical measures are necessary taken to repair the hernia defect for the medial inguinal hernia [9, 15‐19]. The content of the direct hernia cavity, generally composed of preperitoneal fat, is dissected out, leaving the hernia cavity as a rigid outpouching of the transversalis fascia. Consequently, there is a higher risk of seroma for medial inguinal hernias following endoscopic repair [9, 15‐19]. This medial hernia cavity is at also greater risk of recurrence since it represents more a bridging situation compared with the lateral inguinal hernia. Therefore, the requirements for adequate overlap are more stringent.
It is crucial when using an endoscopic technique (TEP, TAPP) to repair medial inguinal hernia that “complete medial sac reduction” be performed to avoid onset of seroma or recurrence. Since the lining of the medial hernia cavity is formed by the transversalis fascia outpouching, the latter is clasped and pulled inwards until the space is completely reduced (“complete medial sac reduction”) [9, 15‐19]. Next, the transversalis fascia that has been pulled inwards is now either fixed with a suture to Cooper’s ligament or blocked off with a Roeder loop [18, 19]. The utmost attention should be paid to this technical step of “complete medial sac reduction” in both TAPP and TEP since it serves to prevent seromas as well as recurrence.
Moreover, in this situation it may be necessary to use a mesh size of 17 × 12 cm instead of the standard size of 15 × 10 cm. For example, analysis of the subgroup of medial inguinal hernias in the Herniamed Registry did indeed reveal that in the mesh fixation group significantly larger size meshes were used. By contrast, in the group with no mesh fixation a greater number of self-adhesive, titanized and 3D standard meshes were also used. The data presented here also demonstrate that for larger medial and combined hernias additional fixation of the mesh is needed using either properly placed absorbable tackers, sutures, or atraumatic fibrin sealants. The data also show that the type of fixation did not impact the recurrence rate.
In summary, it can be stated that for TAPP repair of an inguinal hernia fixation of the mesh is not needed in a significant number of patients. Patients with a medial and combined hernia are at a higher risk of recurrence. The choice of a greater mesh and “complete medial sac reduction” must be carefully made to obtain a plane inguinal region surface for mesh placement and greater mesh overlap. This helps to reduce both the recurrence and the seroma rates. The present study has demonstrated that on using mesh fixation for TAPP, regardless of whether with tacker, suture, glue, or combined, the recurrence rates for larger medial hernias were significantly lower.

Acknowledgments

Open access funding provided by Paracelsus Medical University. Ferdinand Köckerling—Grants to fund the Herniamed Registry from Johnson & Johnson, Norderstedt, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, pfm medical, Cologne, Dahlhausen, Cologne, B Braun, Tuttlingen, MenkeMed, Munich and Bard, Karlsruhe.

Disclosures

F. Mayer, H. Niebuhr, M. Lechner, A. Dinnewitzer, G. Köhler, M. Hukauf, R. H. Fortelny, R. Bittner have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
insite
INHALT
download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!

Jetzt informieren

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen 1
Anhänge

Appendix: Herniamed Study Group

Scientific Board

Köckerling, Ferdinand (Chairman) (Berlin); Berger, Dieter (Baden-Baden); Bittner, Reinhard (Rottenburg); Bruns, Christiane (Magdeburg); Dalicho, Stephan (Magdeburg); Fortelny, René (Wien); Jacob, Dietmar (Berlin); Koch, Andreas (Cottbus); Kraft, Barbara (Stuttgart); Kuthe, Andreas (Hannover); Lippert, Hans (Magdeburg): Lorenz, Ralph (Berlin); Mayer, Franz (Salzburg); Moesta, Kurt Thomas (Hannover); Niebuhr, Henning (Hamburg); Peiper, Christian (Hamm); Pross, Matthias (Berlin); Reinpold, Wolfgang (Hamburg); Simon, Thomas (Sinsheim); Stechemesser, Bernd (Köln); Unger, Solveig (Chemnitz).

Participants

Ahmetov, Azat (Saint-Petersburg); Alapatt, Terence Francis (Frankfurt/Main); Anders, Stefan (Berlin); Anderson, Jürina (Würzburg); Arndt, Anatoli (Elmshorn); Asperger, Walter (Halle); Avram, Iulian (Saarbrücken); Barkus; Jörg (Velbert); Becker, Matthias (Freital); Behrend, Matthias (Deggendorf); Beuleke, Andrea (Burgwedel); Berger, Dieter (Baden-Baden); Bittner, Reinhard (Rottenburg); Blaha, Pavel (Zwiesel); Blumberg, Claus (Lübeck); Böckmann, Ulrich (Papenburg); Böhle, Arnd Steffen (Bremen); Böttger, Thomas Carsten (Fürth); Bolle, Ludger (Berlin); Borchert, Erika (Grevenbroich); Born, Henry (Leipzig); Brabender, Jan (Köln); Brauckmann, Markus (Rüdesheim am Rhein); Breitenbuch von, Philipp (Radebeul); Brüggemann, Armin (Kassel); Brütting, Alfred (Erlangen); Budzier, Eckhard (Meldorf); Burchett, Bert (Waren); Burghardt, Jens (Rüdersdorf); Carus, Thomas (Bremen); Cejnar, Stephan-Alexander (München); Chirikov, Ruslan (Dorsten); Comman, Andreas (Bogen); Crescenti, Fabio (Verden/Aller); Dapunt, Emanuela (Bruneck); Decker, Georg (Berlin); Demmel, Michael (Arnsberg); Descloux, Alexandre (Baden); Deusch, Klaus-Peter (Wiesbaden); Dick, Marcus (Neumünster); Dieterich, Klaus (Ditzingen); Dietz, Harald (Landshut); Dittmann, Michael (Northeim); Dornbusch, Jan (Herzberg/Elster); Drummer, Bernhard (Forchheim); Eckermann, Oliver (Luckenwalde); Eckhoff, Jörn/Hamburg); Elger, Karlheinz (Germersheim); Engelhardt, Thomas (Erfurt); Erichsen, Axel (Friedrichshafen); Eucker, Dietmar (Bruderholz); Fackeldey, Volker (Kitzingen); Farke, Stefan (Delmenhorst); Faust, Hendrik (Emden); Federmann, Georg (Seehausen); Feichter, Albert (Wien); Fiedler, Michael (Eisenberg); Fischer, Ines (Wiener Neustadt); Fortelny, René H. (Wien); Franczak, Andreas (Wien); Franke, Claus (Düsseldorf); Frankenberg von, Moritz (Salem); Frehner, Wolfgang (Ottobeuren); Friedhoff, Klaus (Andernach); Friedrich, Jürgen (Essen); Frings, Wolfram (Bonn); Fritsche, Ralf (Darmstadt); Frommhold, Klaus (Coesfeld); Frunder, Albrecht (Tübingen); Fuhrer, Günther (Reutlingen); Gassler, Harald (Villach); Gawad, Karim A. Frankfurt/Main); Gerdes, Martin (Ostercappeln); Germanov, German (Halberstadt; Gilg, Kai-Uwe (Hartmannsdorf); Glaubitz, Martin (Neumünster); Glutig, Holger (Meissen); Gmeiner, Dietmar (Bad Dürrnberg); Göring, Herbert (München); Grebe, Werner (Rheda-Wiedenbrück); Grothe, Dirk (Melle); Gürtler, Thomas (Zürich); Hache, Helmer (Löbau); Hämmerle, Alexander (Bad Pyrmont); Haffner, Eugen (Hamm); Hain, Hans-Jürgen (Gross-Umstadt); Hammans, Sebastian (Lingen); Hampe, Carsten (Garbsen); Harrer, Petra (Starnberg); Heinzmann, Bernd (Magdeburg); Heise, Joachim Wilfried (Stolberg); Heitland, Tim (München); Helbling, Christian (Rapperswil); Hempen, Hans-Günther (Cloppenburg); Henneking, Klaus-Wilhelm (Bayreuth); Hennes, Norbert (Duisburg); Hermes, Wolfgang (Weyhe); Herrgesell, Holger (Berlin); Herzing, Holger Höchstadt); Hessler, Christian (Bingen); Hildebrand, Christiaan (Langenfeld); Höferlin, Andreas (Mainz); Hoffmann, Henry (Basel); Hoffmann, Michael (Kassel); Hofmann, Eva M. (Frankfurt/Main); Hopfer, Frank (Eggenfelden); Hornung, Frederic (Wolfratshausen); Hügel, Omar (Hannover); Hüttemann, Martin (Oberhausen); Huhn, Ulla (Berlin); Hunkeler, Rolf (Zürich); Imdahl, Andreas (Heidenheim); Jacob, Dietmar (Berlin); Jenert, Burghard (Lichtenstein); Jugenheimer, Michael (Herrenberg); Junger, Marc (München); Kaaden, Stephan (Neustadt am Rübenberge); Käs, Stephan (Weiden); Kahraman, Orhan (Hamburg); Kaiser, Christian (Westerstede); Kaiser, Stefan (Kleinmachnow); Kapischke, Matthias (Hamburg); Karch, Matthias (Eichstätt); Kasparek, Michael S. (München); Keck, Heinrich (Wolfenbüttel); Keller, Hans W. (Bonn); Kienzle, Ulrich (Karlsruhe); Kipfmüller, Brigitte (Köthen); Kirsch, Ulrike (Oranienburg); Klammer, Frank (Ahlen); Klatt, Richard (Hagen); Kleemann, Nils (Perleberg); Klein, Karl-Hermann (Burbach); Kleist, Sven (Berlin); Klobusicky, Pavol (Bad Kissingen); Kneifel, Thomas (Datteln); Knoop, Michael (Frankfurt/Oder); Knotter, Bianca (Mannheim); Koch, Andreas (Cottbus); Köckerling, Ferdinand (Berlin); Köhler, Gernot (Linz); König, Oliver (Buchholz); Kornblum, Hans (Tübingen); Krämer, Dirk (Bad Zwischenahn); Kraft, Barbara (Stuttgart); Kreissl, Peter (Ebersberg); Krones, Carsten Johannes (Aachen); Kruse, Christinan (Aschaffenburg); Kube, Rainer (Cottbus); Kühlberg, Thomas (Berlin); Kuhn, Roger (Gifhorn); Kusch, Eduard (Gütersloh); Kuthe, Andreas (Hannover); Ladberg, Ralf (Bremen); Ladra, Jürgen (Düren); Lahr-Eigen, Rolf (Potsdam); Lainka, Martin (Wattenscheid); Lammers, Bernhard J. (Neuss); Lancee, Steffen (Alsfeld); Lange, Claas (Berlin); Laps, Rainer (Ehringshausen); Larusson, Hannes Jon (Pinneberg); Lauschke, Holger (Duisburg); Leher, Markus (Schärding); Leidl, Stefan (Waidhofen/Ybbs); Lenz, Stefan (Berlin); Lesch, Alexander (Kamp-Lintfort); Liedke, Marc Olaf (Heide); Lienert, Mark (Duisburg); Limberger, Andreas (Schrobenhausen); Limmer, Stefan (Würzburg); Locher, Martin (Kiel); Loghmanieh, Siawasch (Viersen); Lorenz, Ralph (Berlin); Mallmann, Bernhard (Krefeld); Manger, Regina (Schwabmünchen); Maurer, Stephan (Münster); Mayer, Franz (Salzburg); Mellert, Joachim (Höxter); Menzel, Ingo (Weimar); Meurer, Kirsten (Bochum); Meyer, Moritz (Ahaus); Mirow, Lutz (Kirchberg); Mittenzwey, Hans-Joachim (Berlin); Mörder-Köttgen, Anja (Freiburg); Moesta, Kurt Thomas (Hannover); Moldenhauer, Ingolf (Braunschweig); Morkramer, Rolf (Xanten); Mosa, Tawfik (Merseburg); Müller, Hannes (Schlanders); Münzberg, Gregor (Berlin); Mussack, Thomas (St. Gallen); Neumann, Jürgen (Haan); Neumeuer, Kai (Paderborn); Niebuhr, Henning (Hamburg); Nix, Carsten (Walsrode); Nölling, Anke (Burbach); Nostitz, Friedrich Zoltán (Mühlhausen); Obermaier, Straubing); Öz-Schmidt, Meryem (Hanau); Oldorf, Peter (Usingen); Olivieri, Manuel (Pforzheim); Pawelzik, Marek (Hamburg); Peiper, Christian (Hamm); Peitgen, Klaus (Bottrop); Pertl, Alexander (Spittal/Drau); Philipp, Mark (Rostock); Pickart, Lutz (Bad Langensalza); Pizzera, Christian (Graz); Pöllath, Martin (Sulzbach-Rosenberg); Possin, Ulrich (Laatzen); Prenzel, Klaus (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler); Pröve, Florian (Goslar); Pronnet, Thomas (Fürstenfeldbruck); Pross, Matthias (Berlin); Puff, Johannes (Dinkelsbühl); Rabl, Anton (Passau); Rapp, Martin (Neunkirchen); Reck, Thomas (Püttlingen); Reinpold, Wolfgang (Hamburg); Reuter, Christoph (Quakenbrück); Richter, Jörg (Winnenden); Riemann, Kerstin (Alzenau-Wasserlos); Rodehorst, Anette (Otterndorf); Roehr, Thomas (Rödental); Roncossek, Bremerhaven); Roth Hartmut (Nürnberg); Sardoschau, Nihad (Saarbrücken); Sauer, Gottfried (Rüsselsheim); Sauer, Jörg (Arnsberg); Seekamp, Axel (Freiburg); Seelig, Matthias (Bad Soden); Seidel, Hanka (Eschweiler); Seiler, Christoph Michael (Warendorf); Seltmann, Cornelia (Hachenburg); Senkal, Metin (Witten); Shamiyeh, Andreas (Linz); Shang, Edward (München); Siemssen, Björn (Berlin); Sievers, Dörte (Hamburg); Silbernik, Daniel (Bonn); Simon, Thomas (Sinsheim); Sinn, Daniel (Olpe); Sinning, Frank (Nürnberg); Smaxwil, Constatin Aurel (Stuttgart); Schabel, Volker (Kirchheim/Teck); Schadd, Peter (Euskirchen); Schassen von, Christian (Hamburg); Schattenhofer, Thomas (Vilshofen); Scheidbach, Hubert (Neustadt/Saale); Schelp, Lothar (Wuppertal); Scherf, Alexander (Pforzheim); Scheyer, Mathias (Bludenz); Schimmelpenning, Hendrik (Neustadt in Holstein); Schinkel, Svenja (Kempten); Schmid, Michael (Gera); Schmid, Thomas (Innsbruck); Schmidt, Rainer (Paderborn); Schmidt, Sven-Christian (Berlin); Schmidt, Ulf (Mechernich); Schmitz, Heiner (Jena); Schmitz, Ronald (Altenburg); Schöche, Jan (Borna); Schoenen, Detlef (Schwandorf); Schrittwieser, Rudolf/Bruck an der Mur); Schroll, Andreas (München); Schultz, Christian (Bremen-Lesum); Schultz, Harald (Landstuhl); Schulze, Frank P. Mülheim an der Ruhr); Schumacher, Franz-Josef (Oberhausen); Schwab, Robert (Koblenz); Schwandner, Thilo (Lich); Schwarz, Jochen Günter (Rottenburg); Schymatzek, Ulrich (Radevormwald); Spangenberger, Wolfgang (Bergisch-Gladbach); Sperling, Peter (Montabaur); Staade, Katja (Düsseldorf); Staib, Ludger (Esslingen); Stamm, Ingrid (Heppenheim); Stark, Wolfgang (Roth); Stechemesser, Bernd (Köln); Steinhilper, Uz (München); Stengl, Wolfgang (Nürnberg); Stern, Oliver (Hamburg); Stöltzing, Oliver (Meißen); Stolte, Thomas (Mannheim); Stopinski, Jürgen (Schwalmstadt); Stubbe, Hendrik (Güstrow/); Stülzebach, Carsten (Friedrichroda); Tepel, Jürgen (Osnabrück); Terzić, Alexander (Wildeshausen); Teske, Ulrich (Essen); Thews, Andreas (Schönebeck); Tichomirow, Alexej (Brühl); Tillenburg, Wolfgang (Marktheidenfeld); Timmermann, Wolfgang (Hagen); Tomov, Tsvetomir (Koblenz; Train, Stefan H. (Gronau); Trauzettel, Uwe (Plettenberg); Triechelt, Uwe (Langenhagen); Ulcar, Heimo (Schwarzach im Pongau); Unger, Solveig (Chemnitz); Verweel, Rainer (Hürth); Vogel, Ulrike (Berlin); Voigt, Rigo (Altenburg); Voit, Gerhard (Fürth); Volkers, Hans-Uwe (Norden); Vossough, Alexander (Neuss); Wallasch, Andreas (Menden); Wallner, Axel (Lüdinghausen); Warscher, Manfred (Lienz); Warwas, Markus (Bonn); Weber, Jörg (Köln); Weihrauch, Thomas (Ilmenau); Weiß, Johannes (Schwetzingen); Weißenbach, Peter (Neunkirchen); Werner, Uwe (Lübbecke-Rahden); Wessel, Ina (Duisburg); Weyhe, Dirk (Oldenburg); Wieber, Isabell (Köln); Wiesmann, Aloys (Rheine); Wiesner, Ingo (Halle); Withöft, Detlef (Neutraubling); Woehe, Fritz (Sanderhausen); Wolf, Claudio (Neuwied); Yaksan, Arif (Wermeskirchen); Yildirim, Selcuk (Berlin); Zarras, Konstantinos (Düsseldorf); Zeller, Johannes (Waldshut-Tiengen); Zhorzel, Sven (Agatharied); Zuz, Gerhard (Leipzig);
Literatur
1.
Bittner R, Leibl BJ, Jöger C, Kraft B, Ulrich M, Schwarz J (2006) TAPP-Stuttgart technique and result of a large single center series. J Minim Access Surg 2(3):155–159CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Bittner R, Gmähle E, Gmühle B, Schwarz J, Aasvang E, Kehlet H (2010) Lightweight mesh and noninvasive fixation: an effective concept for prevention of chronic pain with laparoscopic hernia repair (TAPP). Surg Endosc 24(12):2958–2964. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-010-1140.​9 CrossRefPubMed
3.
Fortelny RH, Petter-Puchner AH, May C, Jaksch W, Benesch T, Khakpour Z, Redl H, Glaser KS (2012) The impact of atraumatic fibrin sealant vs. staple mesh fixation in TAPP hernia repair on chronic pain and quality of life: results of a randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc 26(1):249–254. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-011-1862-3 CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lau H (2005) Fibrin sealant versus mechanical stapling for mesh fixation during endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty: a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 242:670–675CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Olmi S, Scaini A, Erba L, Guaglio M, Groce E (2007) Quantification of pain in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernioplasty identifies marked differences between prothesis fixation systems. Surgery 142:40–46CrossRefPubMed
6.
Lovisetto F, Zonta S, Rota E, Mazzilli M, Bardone M, Bottero L, Faillace G, Longoni M (2007) Use of human fibrin glue (Tissucol) versus staples for mesh fixation in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Surg 245:222–231CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Tam KW, Liang Hung-Hua, Chai Chiah-Yang (2010) Outcomes of staple fixation of mesh versus nonfixation in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 34(12):3065–3074. doi:10.​1007/​s00268-010-0760-5 CrossRefPubMed
8.
Koch CA, Greenlee SM, Larson DR, Harrington JR, Farley DR (2006) Randomized prospective study of totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: fixation versus no fixation of mesh. JSLS 10:457–460PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH, Klinge U, Kockerling F, Kuhry E, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Sauerland S, Schug-Paß C, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25:2773–2843. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-011-1799-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, Bansal V, Bingener J, Bisgaard T, Buhck H, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH, Grimes KL, Klinge U, Koeckerling F, Kumar S, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P (2015) Update of guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia (International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc 29:289–321. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-014-3917-8 CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Miserez M, Alexandre JH, Campanelli G, Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, Pascual MH, Hoeferlin A, Kongsnorth AN, Mandala V, Palot JP, Schumpelick V, Simmermacher RK, Stoppa R, Flament JB (2007) The European hernia society groin hernia classification: simple and easy to remember. Hernia 11(2):113–116CrossRefPubMed
13.
Smith AI, Royston CM, Sedman PC (1999) Stapled and nonstapled laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 13:804–806CrossRefPubMed
14.
Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Bisgaard T, Rosenberg J (2015) Patient-related risk factors for recurrence after inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Surg Innov 22(3):303–317. doi:10.​1177/​1553350614552731​ CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Reddy VM, Sutton CD, Bloxham L, Garcea G, Ubhi SS, Robertson GS (2007) Laparoscopic repair of direct inguinal hernia: a new technique that reduces the development of postoperative seroma. Hernia 11:393–396. doi:10.​1007/​s10029-007-0233-4 CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
19.
Köckerling F, Jacob DA, Lomanto D, Chowbey P (2012) C. R. Berny: “The Endoloop technique for the primary closure of direct inguinal hernia defect during the endoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach”. Hernia 16:493–494. doi:10.​1007/​s10029-012-0920-7 CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
When is mesh fixation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair necessary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases
verfasst von
F. Mayer
H. Niebuhr
M. Lechner
A. Dinnewitzer
G. Köhler
M. Hukauf
R. H. Fortelny
R. Bittner
F. Köckerling
Publikationsdatum
17.02.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4754-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

The usefulness of 3-dimensional endoscope systems in endoscopic surgery

OriginalPaper

Adapting the robotic platform to small operating theaters: our experience with the side-docking technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

New Technology

A novel endoscopic fluorescent band ligation method for tumor localization

Review

Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training

New Technology

Vessel sealing comparison: old school is still hip

OriginalPaper

Predictive value of drain amylase content for peripancreatic inflammatory fluid collections after laparoscopic (assisted) distal gastrectomy

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

16.04.2024 | Infektiologie | Nachrichten

Kein Abstrich bei chronischen Wunden ohne Entzündungszeichen!

10.04.2024 | Postoperative Schmerztherapie | Nachrichten

Chronische Schmerzen nach Op. oft mit neuropathischer Komponente

10.04.2024 | Narbenhernie | Nachrichten

Deutlich weniger Narbenhernien mit der Small-Bites-Technik
weitere anzeigen

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 CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis 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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ 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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

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

Appendizitis CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.