Original Scientific Report

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Daryl Kai Ann Chia

orcid.org/0000-0001-9936-1225

Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore, Singapore

Search for more papers by this author

Davide Lomanto,

Davide Lomanto

Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore, Singapore

Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119074 Singapore, Singapore

Search for more papers by this author

Sujith Wijerathne,

Corresponding Author

Sujith Wijerathne

[email protected]

Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore, Singapore

Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119074 Singapore, Singapore

[email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Daryl Kai Ann Chia,

Daryl Kai Ann Chia

orcid.org/0000-0001-9936-1225

Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore, Singapore

Search for more papers by this author

Davide Lomanto,

Davide Lomanto

Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore, Singapore

Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119074 Singapore, Singapore

Search for more papers by this author

Sujith Wijerathne,

Corresponding Author

Sujith Wijerathne

[email protected]

Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore, Singapore

Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119074 Singapore, Singapore

[email protected]Search for more papers by this author

First published: 02 March 2020

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05443-z

Citations: 8

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Background

Surgical techniques for inguinal hernia repair have evolved rapidly from open methods to conventional laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (CTEP) and recently single-port TEP (STEP). As there is currently no randomized controlled trial (RCT) reporting long-term patient-reported outcomes between CTEP and STEP, we reviewed patients who were randomized to CTEP or STEP 5 years after surgery.

Methods

Telephone interviews were administered to patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia recruited for the RCT comparing CTEP and STEP in 2011. The modified Body Image Questionnaire was used to measure long-term patient-reported outcomes.

Results

Forty-two out of forty-nine of the STEP group and forty-one out of fifty of the CTEP group responded to phone interviews. Median follow-up time, demographic data and clinical outcomes were comparable between both groups. The Body Image Score (5–20: 5—least dissatisfied, 20—most dissatisfied; BIS score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 5.33 ± 0.90 vs. 7.17 ± 1.87, p < 0.001) and Cosmetic Score (2–20: 2—least satisfied, 20—most satisfied; CS score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 19.05 ± 1.31 vs. 15.87 ± 1.57, p < 0.001) were superior in the STEP group. Similarly, self-reported scar perception (1—cannot be seen, 2—can barely be seen, 3—visible; scar perception score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 1.29 ± 0.51 vs. 2.55 ± 0.64, p < 0.001) and overall experience score (1—least satisfied, 10—most satisfied; overall satisfaction score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 9.57 ± 0.67 vs. 8.22 ± 0.94, p < 0.001) were superior in the STEP group.

Conclusion

Patients who underwent STEP reported superior cosmetic and satisfaction scores and comparable surgical outcomes 5 years after surgery compared to the CTEP group. STEP should be strongly considered in patients who are concerned about long-term cosmetic outcomes and should be offered if surgical expertise is available.

Trial registration NCT02302937

References

1Dulucq JL Treatment of inguinal hernia by insertion of a subperitoneal patch under pre-peritoneoscopy. Chir Memoires Acad Chir (1992) 118(1–2): 83–85
CAS Google Scholar
2 HerniaSurge GroupInternational guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia (2018) 22(1): 1–16510.1007/s10029-017-1668-x
10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Isik A, Gursul C, Peter K et al. Metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in patients with inguinal hernia. World J Surg (2017) 41(5): 1259–126610.1007/s00268-016-3858-6 28050662
10.1007/s00268-016-3858-6
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Cugura JF, Kirac I, Kulis T et al. Comparison of single incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: initial experience. J Endourol (2012) 26(1): 63–6610.1089/end.2011.0352
10.1089/end.2011.0352
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Tsai YC, Ho CH, Tai HC et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc (2013) 27(12): 4684–469210.1007/s00464-013-3116-z
10.1007/s00464-013-3116-z
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Wijerathne S, Agarwal N, Ramzi A et al. Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Surg Endosc (2016) 30(4): 1356–136310.1007/s00464-015-4378-4
10.1007/s00464-015-4378-4
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Choi BJ, Jeong WJ, Lee IK et al. Single-port versus conventional three-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg (2016) 20(6): 789–79510.1007/s10029-016-1499-1
10.1007/s10029-016-1499-1
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Tran H, Turingan I, Tran K et al. Potential benefits of single-port compared to multiport laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Hernia (2014) 18(5): 731–74410.1007/s10029-014-1261-5
10.1007/s10029-014-1261-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Cardinali L, Mazzetti CH, Cadenas Febres A et al. Prospective randomized study comparing single-incision laparoscopic versus multi-trocar laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair at 2 years. Surg Endosc (2018) 32(7): 3262–327210.1007/s00464-018-6045-z
10.1007/s00464-018-6045-z
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med (2008) 148(4): 295–30910.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008
10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Miserez M, Alexandre JH, Campanelli G et al. The European hernia society groin hernia classification: simple and easy to remember. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg (2007) 11(2): 113–11610.1007/s10029-007-0198-3
10.1007/s10029-007-0198-3
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
12Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA et al. Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc (1998) 12(11): 1334–134010.1007/s004649900851
10.1007/s004649900851
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Dunker MS, Bemelman WA, Slors JF et al. Functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients after laparoscopic-assisted and conventional restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum (2001) 44(12): 1800–180710.1007/BF02234458
10.1007/BF02234458
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WCJ et al. Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg. (2012) 204(2): 144–15010.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012
10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Klop KW, Hussain F, Karatepe O et al. Incision-related outcome after live donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc (2013) 27(8): 2801–280610.1007/s00464-013-2811-0
10.1007/s00464-013-2811-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16de Goede B, Eker HH, Klitsie PJ et al. Incisional hernia after liver transplantation: risk factors and health-related quality of life. Clin Transplant (2014) 28(7): 829–83610.1111/ctr.12386
10.1111/ctr.12386
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Demirayak G, Ozdemir IA, Comba C et al. Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery and conventional multiport laparoscopic (CMPL) surgery for hysterectomy: long-term outcomes of abdominal incision scar. J Obstet Gynaecol (2019) 26: 1–5
Google Scholar
18Casaccia M, Papadia FS, Palombo D et al. Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Better cosmesis at the price of an increased incisional hernia rate?. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A (2019) 29(9): 1163–116710.1089/lap.2019.0374
10.1089/lap.2019.0374
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G et al. Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg (2019) 23(3): 473–48410.1007/s10029-019-01964-2
10.1007/s10029-019-01964-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Köckerling F TEP for elective primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair in men: what do we know?. Hernia (2019) 23(3): 439–45910.1007/s10029-019-01936-6
10.1007/s10029-019-01936-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Lo CW, Yang SSD, Tsai YC et al. Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional multiple-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg (2016) 20(1): 21–3210.1007/s10029-015-1443-9
10.1007/s10029-015-1443-9
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Sajid MS, Khawaja AH, Sayegh M et al. A systematic review comparing single-incision versus multi-incision laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair with mesh. Int J Surg Lond Engl (2016) 29: 25–3510.1016/j.ijsu.2016.02.088
10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.02.088
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Perivoliotis K, Tzovaras G, Sarakatsianou C et al. Current status of single-port versus multi-port approach in laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair: an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia (2019) 23(2): 217–23310.1007/s10029-018-01876-7
10.1007/s10029-018-01876-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume44, Issue7

July 2020

Pages 2191-2198

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information