SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3

THE ROLE OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES IN INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

MİNİMAL İNVAZİV VE GELENEKSEL TEKNİKLERİN İNGUİNAL HERNİ TEDAVİSİNDEKİ ROLÜ: RETROSPEKTİF BİR ANALİZ

Metehan Aydın(Burdur Devlet Hastanesi)0009-0006-7784-6620
Murat Akıcı(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, GENEL CERRAHİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-6739-0670
Murat Çilekar(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, GENEL CERRAHİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-9175-6791
Mehlika Bilgi Kırmacı(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, GENEL CERRAHİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-8034-1459
Emre Ballı(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, GENEL CERRAHİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-3201-9756
Sezgin Yılmaz(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, GENEL CERRAHİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0003-0213-3758
Pages
302–309
Publication Date
2026-07-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, the TAPP method offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, a minimally invasive approach, reduced postoperative pain, earlier return to work, and the ability to concurrently repair occult contralateral hernias, making it a preferable option for inguinal hernia repair.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: Inguinal hernia repair is among the most commonly performed surgical procedures in general surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective data from 353 patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia repair at Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University Hospital between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, were reviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the TAPP method offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, a minimally invasive approach, reduced postoperative pain, earlier return to work, and the ability to concurrently repair occult contralateral hernias, making it a preferable option for inguinal hernia repair.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İnguinal herni · Geleneksel onarım · Laparoskopik onarım

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Inguinal hernia repair is among the most commonly performed surgical procedures in general surgery. However, there is no consensus on the optimal surgical method. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of open Lichtenstein repair and laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair techniques by comparing them in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay, cost, postoperative pain and complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective data from 353 patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia repair at Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University Hospital between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, were reviewed. Patients were divided into open and laparoscopic surgery groups, and their operative times, length of hospital stays, postoperative complication rates, and cost analyses were compared. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients underwent laparoscopic TAPP repair, while 120 underwent open Lichtenstein repair. The study population consisted of 322 (91.2%) men and 31 (8.7%) women, with the laparoscopic group (mean age: 52.9) being significantly younger than the open surgery group (mean age: 59.2) (p<0.001). Statistical analysis revealed that the laparoscopic group had significantly shorter hospital stays and reduced postoperative numbness rates compared to the open surgery group (p<0.001). Cost analysis showed that the open surgery group was more cost-effective (p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences observed between the groups in terms of hematoma, seroma, chronic pain, scrotal edema, surgical site infection, urinary retention, and recurrence rates (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic TAPP repair demonstrated a similar safety and efficacy profile compared to Lichtenstein repair. However, the TAPP method offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, a minimally invasive approach, reduced postoperative pain, earlier return to work, and the ability to concurrently repair occult contralateral hernias, making it a preferable option for inguinal hernia repair.

Özet

AMAÇ: Kasık fıtığı onarımı, genel cerrahide en sık yapılan cerrahi işlemler arasındadır. Ancak, en iyi cerrahi yöntem konusunda bir fikir birliği yoktur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, açık Lichtenstein onarımı ve laparoskopik transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) onarım tekniklerinin etkinliğini, ameliyat süresi, hastanede kalış süresi, maliyet, ameliyat sonrası ağrı ve komplikasyonlar açısından karşılaştırarak değerlendirmektir. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Afyonkarahisar Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Hastanesi’nde 1 Ocak 2020 ile 31 Aralık 2022 tarihleri arasında elektif inguinal herni onarımı uygulanan 353 hastanın retrospektif verileri incelenmiştir. Hastalar açık ve laparoskopik cerrahi gruplarına ayrılarak operasyon süreleri, hastanede yatış süreleri, postoperatif komplikasyon oranları ve maliyet analizleri karşılaştırılmıştır. BULGULAR: Toplam 233 hasta laparoskopik TAPP, 120 hasta ise açık Lichtenstein yöntemi ile opere edilmiştir. Çalışma popülasyonunun 322’si (%91,2) erkek, 31’i (%8,7) kadın olup, laparoskopik grup (ortalama yaş: 52,9) açık cerrahi grubuna (ortalama yaş: 59,2) göre anlamlı derecede gençti (p<0.001). İstatistiksel analizde, laparoskopik grupta hastanede kalış süresi ve postoperatif hissizlik oranları açık cerrahi grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında anlamlı derecede daha düşük bulunmuştur (p<0.001). Maliyet analizinde ise, açık cerrahi grubunun daha uygun maliyetli olduğu saptanmıştır (p<0.001). Hematom, seroma, kronik ağrı, skrotal ödem, yara yeri enfeksiyonu, idrar retansiyonu ve nüks açısından ise gruplar arasında anlamlı fark saptanmamıştır (p>0.05). SONUÇ: Laparoskopik TAPP tekniği, Lichtenstein onarımı ile karşılaştırıldığında benzer güvenlik ve etkinlik profili sergilemiştir. Ancak TAPP yöntemi; daha kısa hastanede yatış süresi, minimal invaziv yaklaşım, postoperatif ağrının azlığı, erken işe dönüş ve kontralateral okült hernilerin eş zamanlı onarım avantajları nedeniyle inguinal herni tedavisinde öncelikli tercih edilebilecek bir yöntem olarak öne çıkmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın, M., Akıcı, M., Çilekar, M., Kırmacı, M. B., Ballı, E., Yılmaz, S. (2026). THE ROLE OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES IN INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS. Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3, 302–309. https://doi.org/10.18229/kocatepetip.1746116

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Köckerling F, Simons MP. Current Concepts of Inguinal Hernia Repair. Visc Med. 2018;34(2):145-50.
  2. McCormack K, Scott N, Go PM et al. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD001785.
  3. Gopal SV, Warrier A. Recurrence after groin hernia repair-revisited. Int J Surg. 2013;11(5):374-7.
  4. Daniel JS, Luisangel AR. Anatomy and Pathophysiology of Hernias. In: Fischer JE (Edited by). Master Techniques in Surgery Hernia. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013:1-17.
  5. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK, Montllor MM. The tension-free hernioplasty. Am J Surg. 1989;157(2):188- 93.
  6. Nyhus LM. An anatomic reappraisal of the posterior inguinal wall, with special consideration of the iliopubic tract and its relation to groin hernias. Surg Clin North Am. 1960;44:1305-11.
  7. Anson BJ, McVay CB. Inguinal hernia: the anatomy of the region. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1938;66:186-91.
  8. Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Forse RA. Clinical practice. Groin hernias in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):756-63.
  9. Cullen KA, DeFrances CJ, Kozak LJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey; 2005 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. Vital Health Stat 13. 2007;(165):1-209.
  10. Koch A, Edwards A, Haapaniemi S, et al. Prospective evaluation of 6895 groin hernia repairs in women. Br J Surg. 2005;92(12):1553-8.
  11. Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(9):2773-843.
  12. Gilbert AI. An anatomic and functional classification for the diagnosis and treatment of inguinal hernia. Am J Surg. 1989;157(3):331-3.
  13. Scheuermann U, Niebisch S, Lyros O, et al. Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair–A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2017;17(1):55.
  14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE implementation uptake report: laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/410/38/ImplUptakeReportHernia.pdf. Published February 2008. Accessed: April 8, 2023.
  15. Stoker DL, Spiegelhalter DJ, Singh R, Wellwood JM. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: randomised prospective trial. Lancet. 1994;343(8908):1243-5.
  16. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia. 2018;22(1):1-165.
  17. Watson B, Roberts J, Dobbs B, Roberts R. Is inguinal hernia mesh safe? A prospective study. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(4):538-41.
  18. El-Dhuwaib Y, Corless D, Emmett C, et al. Laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: a longitudinal cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(3):936-45.
  19. Li J, Ji Z, Li Y. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open procedure in the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of the results. Am J Surg. 2014;207(4):602-12.
  20. Koju R, Koju RB, Malla B, et al. Transabdominal pre-peritoneal mesh repair versus Lichtensteins hernioplasty. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2017;15(2):135-40.
  21. Johansson B, Hallerbäck B, Glise H et al. Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study). Ann Surg. 1999;230(2):225-31.
  22. Takayama Y, Kaneoka Y, Maeda A, et al. Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair versus open mesh plug repair for bilateral primary inguinal hernia. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4(2):156-62.
  23. Dhanani NH, Olavarria OA, Wootton S et al. Contralateral exploration and repair of occult inguinal hernias during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and Markov decision process. BJS Open. 2021;5(2):zraa020.
  24. Akin ML, Karakaya M, Batkin A, et al. Prevalence of inguinal hernia in otherwise healthy males of 20 to 22 years of age. BMJ Mil Health. 1997;143(2):101-2.
  25. Griffin KJ, Harris S, Tang TY et al. Incidence of contralateral occult inguinal hernia found at the time of laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) repair. Hernia. 2010;14(4):345-9.
  26. Wauschkuhn CA, Schwarz J, Boekeler U, et al. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: gold standard for bilateral hernias? Surg Endosc. 2010;24(12):3026-30.
  27. Wellwood J, Sculpher MJ, Stoker D, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic vs open mesh repair. BMJ. 1998;317(7151):103-10.
  28. Mahon D, Decadt B, Rhodes M. Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic (TAPP) vs open repair for bilateral hernias. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(9):1386-90.
  29. Aydin M, Fikatas P, Denecke C, et al. Cost analysis of inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2021;25(5):1221-7.
  30. Köckerling F, Stechemesser B, Hukauf M, et al. TEP vs Lichtenstein for primary unilateral hernias in men. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(8):3304-13.
  31. Hindmarsh AC, Cheong E, Lewis MPN, et al. Chronic pain after open vs laparoscopic repair. Br J Surg. 2003;90(9):1152-4.
  32. Schrenk P, Woisetschläger R, Rieger R, et al. TAPP vs TEP vs Shouldice: postoperative pain and activity. Br J Surg. 1996;83(11):1563-6.
  33. Hawn MT, Itani KMF, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after herniorrhaphy. Surgery. 2006;140(2):198-205.
  34. Huerta S, Timmerman C, Argo M, et al. Open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2019;241:119-27.
  35. Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R. Endoscopic vs open mesh techniques: meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(2):188-99.
  36. Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B, et al. Meta-analysis of open vs laparoscopic repair. Br J Surg. 2003;90(12):1479-92.
  37. Grant AM. Laparoscopic vs open groin hernia repair: meta-analysis. Hernia. 2002;6(1):2-10.
  38. Bittner R, Schmedt CG, Schwarz J, et al. Laparoscopic transperitoneal routine repair. Br J Surg. 2002;89(8):1062-6.
  39. Lowham AS, Filipi CJ, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, et al. Mechanisms of hernia recurrence after preperitoneal mesh repair. Ann Surg. 1997;225(4):422-31.
  40. O’Reilly EA, Burke JP, O’Connell PR. Meta-analysis of surgical morbidity after laparoscopic vs open repair. Ann Surg. 2012;255(5):846-53.