A comparative study between open pre-peritoneal approach versus laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach in recurrent inguinal hernia repair: a prospective cohort study

Abstract

Abstract Background The repair of recurrent inguinal hernias after prosthetic mesh repair is challenging due to the technical complexity and complications associated with it. As well as the increased risk of recurrence due to weakened tissues and distorted anatomy. The Posterior Pre-Peritoneal Approach yields significantly better results than the anterior approach due to its distance from previously scarred tissue. Objective To compare the open pre-peritoneal approach and Laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach in the management of recurrent inguinal hernia which was previously managed through an open anterior approach regarding their intra-operative time, the postoperative outcomes in the form of hematoma, wound infection and finally the recurrence within 1-year follow-up. Patients and methods The current study is a prospective cohort study, a single-center trial conducted from June 2021 to June 2022 in the general surgery department in Ain Shams University Hospitals, which included 74 patients presented with recurrent inguinal hernia who had previous open anterior approach 68(91.8%) males and 6(8.1%) females including a 1-year follow-up postoperative. Results There were 74 patients in our study with 37 patients in each group. Group (I) underwent an open pre-peritoneal approach and group (II) underwent a Laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach. The mean age of the group (I) is 39.51 with a standard deviation of  ± 3.49. While in group (II) the mean age is 39.37 with standard deviation  ± 3.44 (p = 0.881). From the included 74 patients 67(91.8%) were males and 6(8.1%) were females. As regards the co-morbidities, in group (I) 17(45.9%) patients have no co-morbidities, 11(29.7%) patients have diabetes mellitus, 6(16.2%) patients have hypertension, and 3(8.1%) patients have diabetes and hypertension. Andin group (II) 26(70.3%) patients have no co-morbidities, 6(16.2%) patients have diabetes mellitus, 3(8.1%) patients have hypertension, and 2(5.4%) patients have diabetes and hypertension (p = 0.207). Regarding intra-operative time, the mean time in minutes in the group (I) is 63.33 with a standard deviation of  ± 11.95. While in group (II) the mean time in minutes is 81.21 with a standard deviation of  ± 18.03 (p = 0.015). The postoperative outcomes were assessed for 1-year follow-up in the form of hematoma, wound infection, and recurrence within 1 year. Regarding the hematoma occurred in 4(10.8%) patients in group (I). While in 2(5.4%) patients in group (II) (p = 0.674). The wound infection was found in 5(13.5%) patients in group(I) and zero patients in group (II) (p = 0.021). Finally, we followed up with the patients for about 1 year to detect the recurrence. Which was found in 3(8.1%) patients in group (I) and 1(2.7%) patient in group (II) (p = 0.615). Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate that both the laparoscopic approach and the open posterior approach are effective for recurrent inguinal hernia following anterior approach mesh hernioplasty, with comparable results. Laparoscopy has been associated with a lower rate of recurrence and overall complications compared to open technique, however, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the preferred option due to its lengthy learning curve and difficulty to perform. Furthermore, the results of this study confirm the previously reported positive results of the posterior pre-peritoneal for recurrent inguinal hernia, particularly when performed by experienced surgeons. Therefore, further prospective randomized population-based trials are necessary to better assess the decision-making for recurrent hernia management and the impact of specialization in abdominal wall surgery in terms of recurrence and complications.