Laparoscopic transperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty (TAPP) after radical open retropubic prostatectomy: special features and clinical outcomes

Peitsch, W.

doi:10.1007/s10029-018-1846-5

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple authors have since demonstrated that LIHR after radical prostatectomy can be a safe alternative to the open approach, with no statistically significant difference of postoperative complications, conversion to open surgery or recurrence. 5,7,8 Given the similarities between the laparoscopic TAPP repair and robotic repairs, similar findings between the 2 modalities are to be expected. 15 In fact, a recent propensitymatched analysis using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database matched patients undergoing RIHR who had a previous urologic pelvic surgery to those who did not have a history of previous urologic pelvic surgery and found no difference in complication rate, 30-day readmissions, recurrence rate, or postoperative complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair After Prostatectomy: How to Navigate Safely

Salas-Parra

Lima

Pereira

et al. 2021

Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &Amp; Percutaneous Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: In recent decades, minimally invasive approaches have found their place in treating a specific subset of patients with inguinal hernias, predominantly those with recurrent or bilateral disease. Classically, prior history of urologic pelvic operations, such as prostatectomy, has been listed as relative contraindication for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. As the adoption of the robotics platform continues to grow, we aim to outline a feasible robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair technique in patients with previous prostatectomies. We report the outcomes of 15 patients who underwent repair at 2 institutions.Methods: This is a retrospective case series of 15 patients who underwent robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach repair of their inguinal hernias after prostatectomy. Demographics, intraoperative variables, and outcomes of our cases are described.Results: Fifteen patients were included in our cohort. All patients had a history of prostatectomy (7 open, 2 laparoscopic, and 6 robotic) due to prostate cancer. Median age was 70 years old (range: 60 to 89 y), with a median body mass index of 26.3 kg/m 2 (range: 20.5 to 37.4 kg/m 2 ). Hernia defects were bilateral in 6 patients and unilateral in the remaining 9 (right; 6, left; 3). The shortest interval between prostatectomy and subsequent hernia repair was 4 months (range: 4 to 216 mo). The median operative time was 139 min (range: 91 to 281 min). All defects were repaired using a polypropylene mesh except in 1 case, where a coated monofilament polyester mesh was used after having a large peritoneal defect to close, preventing future adhesions to the bowel. Mesh sizes used were large (16×11 cm), extra-large (17×12 cm) for anatomic mesh, and 20×15 cm for the monofilament polyester mesh. The mesh was fixed in 14 of 15 cases. Fixation was accomplished with absorbable suture (n = 13), barbed suture (n = 1), and fibrin sealant (n = 1). Peritoneal closure was always performed using a continuous running v-loc suture. There were no documented major intraoperative complications, no 30-day readmission, or recurrences recorded within the follow-up period. Postoperatively, only 2 seromas and 1 hematoma were documented during the follow-up period.Conclusions: Robotic inguinal hernia repairs in patients with previous prostatectomy is safe and feasible in most patients. Larger patient series are needed to confirm these findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair After Prostatectomy: How to Navigate Safely

Salas-Parra

Lima

Pereira

et al. 2021

Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &Amp; Percutaneous Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are two ways to avoid such injuries. First, it has been reported that when TAPP is performed after RP it is not necessary to dissect the preperitoneal space in the medial of the hernia orifice to insert mesh, 8 and hence, the surgery can be terminated without dissecting the preperitoneal space in the medial of the hernia orifice. Second, as reported by Tokumura et al, 9 if the inguinal tissue becomes tumescent due to tumescent local anesthesia, dissection of the preperitoneal space in the medial of the hernia orifice is possible, and if it does not become tumescent it is difficult to dissect and the TAPP procedure should be terminated without dissecting the preperitoneal space in the medial of the hernia orifice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An inguinal hernia that arose after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy and the repair of an intraoperative external iliac vein injury: A case report

Nakanishi

Igarashi

Miki

et al. 2021

Asian J Endoscop Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case involved a 63‐year‐old man. He underwent robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer. One year after the operation, he consulted our hospital about left inguinal swelling. Under a diagnosis of a left external inguinal hernia, transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) was performed under general anesthesia. The inside of the hernia orifice had been damaged by the RARP, and the resultant fibrosis was so marked that it was difficult to dissect the preperitoneal space. Furthermore, an external iliac vein injury occurred during the operation. The bleeding was controlled, and we used laparoscopic continuous non‐absorbable sutures to repair the external iliac vein injury. The number of TAPP procedures performed after radical prostatectomy has been increasing in recent years, but dissecting the preperitoneal space inside a hernia orifice is difficult. Although external iliac vein injuries are rare complications of TAPP procedures, they can be laparoscopically repaired.

show abstract

“…With regard to operation length, most evidence in a shorter operation duration are with open repair 14 . The difference in the duration of the operation can be partly attributed to operative complications, which although uncommon for both methods, are more frequent in the laparoscopic group for vascular injuries 16 . Hernia Recurrences: Recurrence is arguably the most important indicator of the success of a hernia procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When making the decision for open or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, differentiating between the chronic pain associated with each method is another important consideration less persisting pain in the laparoscopic groups16 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal Accesss (TEP) versus Open Inguinal Hernioplasty: A Pragmatic Randomized Control Trial

Roy¹,

Saha

Yusuf

et al. 2021

J. Natl Inst. Neurosci Bangladesh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequently performed operation in general surgery. The standard method for inguinal hernia repair had changed little over a hundred years until the introduction of synthetic mesh. This mesh can be placed by either using an open approach or by using a minimal access laparoscopic technique. Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to compare minimal access laparoscopic mesh techniques with open techniques in hernioplasty. Methodology: This pragmatic randomized control trial was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College & Hospital, Dhaka from January 2014 to December 2015 for a period of two years. Patients at any age with both sexes who were presented with inguinal hernia were selected as study population. These patients were divided into two group designated as group A and group B. In group A inguinal hernia repair was performed by laparoscopic technique and in group B open technique was used to repair the inguinal hernia. The comparison was done between open and laparoscopic technique of inguinal hernia repair in terms of duration of operation, per-operative complication, immediate post-operative pain, numbness, duration of hospital stay and time of return to normal activities. Follow up was done from 6 months to 2 years. Results: A total number of 200 patients were recruited for repairing of inguinal hernia. Duration of operation was longer initially in the laparoscopic groups (Laparoscopic approach 90 min vs. Lichtenstein approach 60 min). Post-operative pain was another important outcome to consider when choosing between laparoscopic and open repair of inguinal hernia. Laparoscopic repair had been associated with less post-operative pain than open repair. Operative complications were uncommon for both methods. Length of hospital stay was little shorter in laparoscopic group (laparoscopic 1-2 days vs. open technique 3-4 days); however, return to usual activity was earlier for laparoscopic groups (7 days) where open group: 20-30 days. The data available showed less persisting pain (Overall 8/80 versus 12/100) and less persisting numbness (Overall 3/80 versus 7/100) in the laparoscopic groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, minimal access laparoscopic mesh technique is better than open techniques in inguinal hernia repair. Journal of National Institute of Neurosciences Bangladesh, January 2021, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 75-78

show abstract

Laparoscopic transperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty (TAPP) after radical open retropubic prostatectomy: special features and clinical outcomes

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair After Prostatectomy: How to Navigate Safely

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair After Prostatectomy: How to Navigate Safely

An inguinal hernia that arose after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy and the repair of an intraoperative external iliac vein injury: A case report

Minimal Accesss (TEP) versus Open Inguinal Hernioplasty: A Pragmatic Randomized Control Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About