Single-Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty

Luo, Shanshan; Wu, Shike; Lai, Hao; Mo, Xianwei; Chen, Jiansi

doi:10.1177/1553350617690308

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Very limited information only could be found on the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approach. The literature search identified four RCTs [144–147] (n = 398) on this topic and one meta-analysis [148]. Only three of the four RCTs were included in this meta-analysis as one of the trials was published later.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.MethodsAn expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.ResultsIn general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.ConclusionsConsidering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Lai et al , the operative time for unilateral repair took significantly longer with LESS TEP than with conventional TEP ( P = 0.01), but bilateral TEP repairs took similar amounts of time. The Luo et al review reported that both unilateral and bilateral LESS TEP repairs required a longer operative time than their conventional counterparts ( P = 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively), but were associated significantly less postoperative pain with LESS TEP technique (POD) 7 ( P = 0.021) . Neither study found a significant difference in incidence of conversion, development of complications, length of hospital stay, duration of recovery, and incidence of recurrence between the LESS and conventional TEP.…”

Section: Current Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five meta‐analyses and reviews were found (Table ). Three studies compared the outcomes of various LESS and conventional LIHR , and the other two studies compared LESS and conventional TEP .…”

Section: Current Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 2014 study by Lai et al incorporated eight clinical trials—two on percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (PEC) , one on TAPP , and five on TEP —in its quantitative analysis; the eight trials had a total of 926 patients . A study by Luo et al published in 2017 included 17 clinical trials—2 on PEC , 2 on TAPP , and 13 on TEP —in its quantitative analysis; the 17 trials had a total of 1737 patients . The 2016 study by Sajid et al incorporated 15 trials—2 on PEC , 1 on TAPP , 11 on TEP , and 1 with combined results from TAPP and TEP —in its quantitative analysis; the 15 trials had a total of 1651 patients .…”

Section: Current Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies by Lai et al and Luo et al included subgroup analysis for each IHR technique (PEC, TAPP, and TEP) and overall analysis comparing LESS and the conventional technique . Compared to the Lai et al study, the Luo et al study had more data for its TEP analysis (from three additional studies) and its TAPP analysis (from one additional study) .…”

Section: Current Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery in inguinal hernia repair

Buenafe

Lee-Ong

2017

Asian J Endoscop Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (IHR) offers the potential for excellent cosmetic outcomes and maximization of the inherent advantages of minimally invasive surgery. LESS IHR is associated with a steep learning curve, which is attributable to both the IHR technique itself and the single-site technique. The technical obstacles in the single-site technique may be mitigated by employing certain maneuvers and strategies that minimize clashing between instruments and improve freedom of movement. The current literature consistently points out the inherent challenges in LESS IHR, with its longer operative time compared to that of conventional laparoscopic IHR. LESS IHR performed by capable operators has comparable complication rates, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of recurrence as conventional laparoscopic IHR. LESS IHR is both feasible and safe. Given its excellent cosmetic outcome, it is likely to be sought by younger patients who are concerned with scar formation. The use of robotics may bypass the technical challenges in LESS, but cost considerations in their usage will likely persist.

show abstract

Single Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Tran

Hawthorne

2018

Management of Abdominal Hernias

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty

Cited by 15 publications

References 34 publications

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

Laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery in inguinal hernia repair

Single Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About