TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Urkan,Murat
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Peker,Yasar Subutay
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000901201
Resumo: SUMMARY OBJECTIVES Inguinal hernioplasty techniques have been improved since the first hernioplasty. Tension-free techniques that apply synthetic mesh materials, as in the Lichtenstein approach, are the gold standard. Laparoscopic hernioplasty is the strongest alternative to Lichtenstein. The superiority of laparoscopic hernioplasty over Lichtenstein is a major topic of debate. In this study, we aimed to find a conclusion to this debate by comparing our totally extraperitoneal (TEP) experiences with Lichtenstein experiences. METHODS Patients who underwent inguinal hernioplasty at the Gulhane Training and Research Hospital from 2013 to 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The sample included 96 TEP and 90 Lichtenstein patients for a total of 186 patients. The variables assessed were hospitalization duration, postoperative early visual analog scale score, chronic pain, paresthesia, recurrence, and early postoperative complications. Data were collected from patient records and via telephone questionnaire if needed. Data analysis was done by SPSS v20, using chi-square, Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS Male/female ratios were similar between the TEP and Lichtenstein groups. There was no difference in mean age between groups (p=0.1). The hospital stay was shorter (p=0.0001), and early postoperative visual analog scale score was lower in the TEP group (p=0.003). Chronic pain, paresthesia, recurrence, and early postoperative complications (hematoma, seroma, wound infection) were similar. CONCLUSIONS TEP is superior to Lichtenstein with shorter hospitalization duration and lower rates of early postoperative pain. No difference between the two techniques was found for chronic pain. We believe that laparoscopic hernioplasty approach may be the best alternative technique for inguinal hernia repair.
id AMB-1_b0b57c81ecf3d45a0484f1e2b2c5d39a
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302019000901201
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort studyHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyHernia, Inguinal/surgerySUMMARY OBJECTIVES Inguinal hernioplasty techniques have been improved since the first hernioplasty. Tension-free techniques that apply synthetic mesh materials, as in the Lichtenstein approach, are the gold standard. Laparoscopic hernioplasty is the strongest alternative to Lichtenstein. The superiority of laparoscopic hernioplasty over Lichtenstein is a major topic of debate. In this study, we aimed to find a conclusion to this debate by comparing our totally extraperitoneal (TEP) experiences with Lichtenstein experiences. METHODS Patients who underwent inguinal hernioplasty at the Gulhane Training and Research Hospital from 2013 to 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The sample included 96 TEP and 90 Lichtenstein patients for a total of 186 patients. The variables assessed were hospitalization duration, postoperative early visual analog scale score, chronic pain, paresthesia, recurrence, and early postoperative complications. Data were collected from patient records and via telephone questionnaire if needed. Data analysis was done by SPSS v20, using chi-square, Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS Male/female ratios were similar between the TEP and Lichtenstein groups. There was no difference in mean age between groups (p=0.1). The hospital stay was shorter (p=0.0001), and early postoperative visual analog scale score was lower in the TEP group (p=0.003). Chronic pain, paresthesia, recurrence, and early postoperative complications (hematoma, seroma, wound infection) were similar. CONCLUSIONS TEP is superior to Lichtenstein with shorter hospitalization duration and lower rates of early postoperative pain. No difference between the two techniques was found for chronic pain. We believe that laparoscopic hernioplasty approach may be the best alternative technique for inguinal hernia repair.Associação Médica Brasileira2019-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000901201Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.65 n.9 2019reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.65.9.1201info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessUrkan,MuratPeker,Yasar Subutayeng2019-10-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302019000901201Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2019-10-08T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
title TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
spellingShingle TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
Urkan,Murat
Herniorrhaphy
Laparoscopy
Hernia, Inguinal/surgery
title_short TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
title_full TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
title_sort TEP versus Lichtenstein, which one to choose? A retrospective cohort study
author Urkan,Murat
author_facet Urkan,Murat
Peker,Yasar Subutay
author_role author
author2 Peker,Yasar Subutay
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Urkan,Murat
Peker,Yasar Subutay
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Herniorrhaphy
Laparoscopy
Hernia, Inguinal/surgery
topic Herniorrhaphy
Laparoscopy
Hernia, Inguinal/surgery
description SUMMARY OBJECTIVES Inguinal hernioplasty techniques have been improved since the first hernioplasty. Tension-free techniques that apply synthetic mesh materials, as in the Lichtenstein approach, are the gold standard. Laparoscopic hernioplasty is the strongest alternative to Lichtenstein. The superiority of laparoscopic hernioplasty over Lichtenstein is a major topic of debate. In this study, we aimed to find a conclusion to this debate by comparing our totally extraperitoneal (TEP) experiences with Lichtenstein experiences. METHODS Patients who underwent inguinal hernioplasty at the Gulhane Training and Research Hospital from 2013 to 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The sample included 96 TEP and 90 Lichtenstein patients for a total of 186 patients. The variables assessed were hospitalization duration, postoperative early visual analog scale score, chronic pain, paresthesia, recurrence, and early postoperative complications. Data were collected from patient records and via telephone questionnaire if needed. Data analysis was done by SPSS v20, using chi-square, Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS Male/female ratios were similar between the TEP and Lichtenstein groups. There was no difference in mean age between groups (p=0.1). The hospital stay was shorter (p=0.0001), and early postoperative visual analog scale score was lower in the TEP group (p=0.003). Chronic pain, paresthesia, recurrence, and early postoperative complications (hematoma, seroma, wound infection) were similar. CONCLUSIONS TEP is superior to Lichtenstein with shorter hospitalization duration and lower rates of early postoperative pain. No difference between the two techniques was found for chronic pain. We believe that laparoscopic hernioplasty approach may be the best alternative technique for inguinal hernia repair.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-09-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000901201
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000901201
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.65.9.1201
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.65 n.9 2019
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212834321891328