Erschienen in:
09.09.2019 | Letter to the Editor
Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is not superior to open: Author’s reply
verfasst von:
B. Pokala, P. R. Armijo, L. Flores, D. Hennings, Dmitry Oleynikov
Erschienen in:
Hernia
|
Ausgabe 1/2020
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Excerpt
We thank Dr. Huerta for his comprehensive comment on our article “Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review” [
1,
2]. Unfortunately, studies performed using national database have inherent limitations. We agree that specific information on age distribution, complete patient demographics, and a detailed list of postoperative complications is important. However, as Dr. Huerta stated, majority of published literature on comparative effectiveness of inguinal hernia repair (IHR) comprises only case series at a single institution, leading to selection bias and impaired generalization of the population. Despite its limitations, our study provides the current state of utilization and clinical and surgical short-term outcomes of inguinal hernia repairs performed in the United States. Indeed, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard; nonetheless, our study design supports minimally invasive IHR, both laparoscopy and robotic assistance, to improve 30-day outcomes when compared to its open counterpart. Further, we concluded that the use of laparoscopy and robotic assistance for IHR should be considered. …
