Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Innovative Surgical Sciences

The Rapid Journal of the German Society of Surgery

Editor-in-Chief: Jähne, Joachim

Editorial Board: Dziki, Adam / Jauch, Karl-Walter / Karpeh, Martin S. / Kitajima, Masaki / Mansfield, Paul / Pohlemann, Tim / Primrose, John / Hang-Kwang, Yang

4 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2364-7485
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Surgical risk factors for recurrence in inguinal hernia repair – a review of the literature

Henning Niebuhr / Ferdinand Köckerling
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School, Vivantes Hospital, Neue Bergstrasse 6, D-13585 Berlin, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-04-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0013

Abstract

Despite all the progress made in inguinal hernia surgery driven by the development of meshes and laparoendoscopic operative techniques, the proportion of recurrent inguinal hernias is still from 12% to 13%. Recurrences can present very soon after primary inguinal hernia repair generally because of technical failure. However, they can also develop much later after the primary operation probably due to patient-specific factors. Supported by evidence-based data, this review presents the surgical risk factors for recurrent inguinal hernia after the primary operation. The following factors are implicated here: choice of operative technique and mesh, mesh fixation technique, mesh size, management of medial and lateral hernia sac, sliding hernia, lipoma in the inguinal canal, operating time, type of anesthesia, participation in a register database, femoral hernia, postoperative complications, as well as the center and surgeon volume. If these surgical risk factors are taken into account when performing primary inguinal hernia repair, a good outcome can be expected for the patient. Therefore, they should definitely be observed.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: case load; inguinal hernia; mesh fixation; mesh size; mesh; recurrence

Introduction

Despite all the progress made in inguinal hernia surgery (meshes and laparoendoscopic operative techniques), the proportion of recurrent inguinal hernias among the total patient collective with inguinal hernias is still from 12% to 13% [1], [2]. Depending on its cause, a recurrence can occur very soon after the primary operation or it can also develop much later on [3], [4]. There is a discrepancy in the literature between the low recurrence rates reported in individual studies and the still relatively high recurrence rates identified in a nonselective total patient collective in registers. This is mainly due to the fact that many studies have a maximum follow-up time of only 1–5 years, during which only about 40% of recurrences present [3], whereas the register studies with nonselective patient collectives also include those recurrences developing later [3]. Therefore, patients with inguinal hernia repair should be followed up for a long time. The literature reports on numerous surgical factors for the recurrence of inguinal hernia. While citing evidence-based data, this present systematic review aims to identify the most important surgical factors implicated in the development of recurrence. Because the new “World Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management” no longer recommend but the mesh-based operative techniques Lichtenstein, totally extraperitoneal (TEP), and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) [5], the following analyses are confined to these surgical techniques.

Materials and methods

Searches were performed in PubMed and Medline as well as in the reference lists of all included publications for relevant studies. The search terms were “inguinal hernia and recurrence”, “recurrent inguinal hernia”, “hernia recurrence”, and “recurrent inguinal hernia”. A total of 1660 publications were identified and screened. Finally, 80 articles were relevant for this review.

Results

Use of meshes

Supported by the highest level of evidence, the guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia state that the use of meshes results in a lower recurrence rate. Hence, nonmesh techniques are no longer recommended, except when the patient declines the use of a mesh or no mesh is available [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. This recommendation is substantiated by several meta-analyses of prospective randomized studies (Level 1 A as per the Oxford criteria) [11], [12], [13], [14] as well as by register data [15], [16].

Lichtenstein vs. TEP/TAPP

The meta-analyses comparing the recurrence rate after open-mesh repair (Lichtenstein) to laparoendoscopic mesh repair (TEP/TAPP) in some cases identified lower recurrence rates for the Lichtenstein operation [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This finding was the focus of an update of its guidelines by the European Hernia Society, which carried out its own meta-analysis [9]. The difference in the long-term recurrence rate between Lichtenstein and endoscopic surgery was not significant [9]. Nor did the analysis of the recurrence rates after TEP/TAPP vs. Lichtenstein of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exclusively male patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia in the worldwide Guidelines of the HerniaSurge Group [5] identify any significant difference.

TEP vs. TAPP

In several meta-analyses, no difference was found in the recurrence rate between TAPP and TEP [22], [23], [24], [25]. Nor did a literature analysis in the “World Guidelines for Groin Hernia Treatment” detect any significant difference in the recurrence rate between TEP and TAPP [5].

Heavyweight vs. lightweight meshes in Lichtenstein operation

Four meta-analyses revealed that the use of “lightweight, large-pore meshes” in Lichtenstein operation did not lead to a higher recurrence rate [26], [27], [28], [29]. Likewise, in one meta-analysis, the use of an extremely lightweight and large-pore mesh (Vypro II) for inguinal hernia repair was not found to result in a higher recurrence rate [30]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of nine studies with 3133 inguinal hernia operations found that lightweight, large-pore, and partially absorbable meshes did not result in a higher recurrence rate compared to nonabsorbable meshes [31].

Heavyweight vs. lightweight meshes in laparoendoscopic operations (TEP/TAPP)

Similarly, a meta-analysis of eight studies with 1592 patients demonstrated that, for the laparoendoscopic techniques TEP and TAPP, the use of lightweight and large-pore meshes did not increase the recurrence rate [32].

Self-gripping vs. sutured meshes in open inguinal hernia surgery

Five systematic reviews and meta-analyses compared the findings of open inguinal hernia operations for self-gripping to sutured meshes, with a maximum number of 1353 patients. No difference in the recurrence rates was identified in any of the studies [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. The analysis of additional suture fixation of the self-gripping mesh for cases in the Herniamed Hernia Register did not find any evidence that this impacted the recurrence rate [38].

Suture vs. glue fixation in open inguinal hernia repair

Four meta-analyses compared suture to glue mesh fixation in open inguinal hernia surgery [39], [40], [41], [42]. Based on a total number of 1992 patients, it was demonstrated that there was no difference in the recurrence rates between these mesh fixation techniques.

A study from the Swedish Hernia Register assessed the effects of different mesh fixation suture materials on the risk of recurrence after Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty [43]. With regard to the recurrence risk, long-term absorbable sutures are an excellent alternative to permanent sutures for mesh fixation in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. Short-term absorbable sutures represent an independent risk factor for recurrence and should therefore be avoided [42].

Tacker vs. glue vs. no fixation in laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair

Three meta-analyses with a maximum of 1386 patients revealed that no mesh fixation in laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia surgery did not lead to a higher recurrence rate compared to mesh fixation [44], [45], [46]. That applied to TAPP for defects up to 3 cm. Therefore, the guidelines recommend nonfixation of the mesh in TAPP only for defects up to 3 cm [7], [10].

Tacker vs. glue fixation in laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair

Six meta-analyses with a maximum of nine studies and 1454 patients did not find any significant difference in the recurrence rate in the comparison of these rates for tacker to glue mesh fixation in laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia surgery [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Mesh fixation should be used in TAPP, in particular, for defects of more than 3 cm and for medial inguinal hernia [53]. Similarly, a register study of the Danish Hernia Database confirmed the equivalence of tacker and glue mesh fixation in TAPP [54].

Use of a slit mesh in TEP/TAPP

The Guidelines of the International Endohernia Society [7], [10] do not recommend mesh slitting for TEP and TAPP. A nonslitted mesh is not associated with a higher recurrence rate than a mesh that has been slitted and fitted around the spermatic cord structures. On the contrary, a slit mesh can present a higher risk of recurrence. In the Lichtenstein operation, the mesh must be slitted to permit the passage of the spermatic cord structures.

Mesh size

The standard mesh size recommended in the guidelines [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] for TEP and TAPP is 15×10 cm. Under no circumstances should a smaller mesh be used as this would result in a higher recurrence rate. For larger direct (>3–4 cm) and indirect (>4–5 cm) inguinal hernias, even larger meshes (12×17 cm) should be used [7], [10].

A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the importance of mesh size in Lichtenstein repair found in 29 studies that a mesh larger than 90 cm2 was used [55]. The most frequently preferred commercial mesh size was 7.5×15 cm. No paper mentioned the size of the mesh after trimming. The pooled proportion of recurrence for small meshes was 0.0019 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.007–0.0036], favoring larger meshes to reduce the chance of recurrence. Although there is no evidence, it seems that larger meshes reduce recurrence rates [55].

Management of the indirect sac

Wherever technical feasible in laparoendoscopic techniques, the hernia sac should be completely excised from the inguinal canal. According to the guidelines, a large indirect sac may be ligated proximally and divided distally without the risk of a higher postoperative pain and recurrence rate but with an increased postoperative seroma rate [7], [10]. The complete reduction of the hernia sac may eliminate the occurrence of chronic seroma or pseudo-hydrocele [7], [10].

In a study of the Swedish Hernia Register, the 5-year cumulative incidence of reoperation for recurrence after open inguinal hernia repair was 1.7% for hernia sac excision, 1.7% for division, and 2.7% for invagination [56]. For indirect hernia repair, the relative risk of reoperation for recurrence was 0.63 (95% CI=0.51–0.79) for excision of the sac and 0.72 (95% CI=0.53–0.99) for division compared to invagination. Lichtenstein repair combined with hernia sac excision had a 5-year cumulative reoperation incidence for recurrence of only 1.0%. The authors concluded that excision of the indirect hernia sac in inguinal hernia repair is associated with a lower risk of hernia recurrence than division or invagination [56].

Management of the direct sac

Analyses of registers showed that the recurrence rate after the primary operation of direct inguinal hernia was significantly higher than after indirect inguinal hernia (5.2% vs. 2.7%; p<0.001) [57], [58], [59], [60]. Accordingly, extreme caution must be exercised for direct/medial inguinal hernia repair.

For larger direct/medial hernias in laparoendoscopic techniques, the fixed hernia sac should be reduced to prevent seromas and recurrences [7], [10]. Unlike an indirect inguinal hernia, which after excision of the hernia sac from the inguinal canal has a curtain-like closure, the direct hernia sac will persist unless further measures are taken, for example, it becomes filled with serous fluid, possibly giving rise to a “pseudo-recurrence”. Besides, there is a risk that because of pressure exerted on this area the mesh will be pushed in further, thus resulting in recurrence. Therefore, the transversalis fascia lining this region should be inverted and either sutured to Cooper’s ligament or ligated with a Roeder loop. This results in the complete reduction of the sac [7], [10], thus helping to prevent seroma formation and recurrence [7], [10].

The most plausible explanation for the development of a direct recurrence after Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair is insufficient medial mesh fixation and overlap over the pubic tubercle [61]. It may be possible to reduce the recurrence rate after Lichtenstein repair by more than half by paying increased attention to this specific aspect of the operation [61].

Sliding inguinal hernia

Among male patients, the sliding inguinal hernias have a higher cumulative reoperation rate for recurrence compared to nonsliding inguinal hernias (6.0% vs. 4.2%; log-rank p=0.001) [62].

Lipomas in the inguinal canal

Special attention should be paid to preperitoneal lipoma as a possibly overlooked herniation or potential future pseudo-recurrence despite a nondislocated correctly positioned mesh [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. Lipomas in the inguinal canal can be easily overlooked at the time of laparoendoscopic hernia repair, and this can lead to unsatisfactory results [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. All lipomas should be reduced and excised whenever feasible. Awareness and appropriate management of the sliding lipoma will help to reduce the risk of recurrence after laparoendoscopic hernioplasty.

Operating time

In a study of the Swedish Hernia Register, the relative risk of reoperation for recurrence of all patients operated on in less than 36 min was 26% higher than that of all patients with an operating time of more than 66 min (1.26; 95% CI=1.11–1.43) [69]. The authors concluded that a significant decrease in reoperation for recurrence with increasing operating time exhorts the hernia surgeon to avoid speed and to maintain thoroughness throughout the procedure [69].

Anesthesia

Data from the Swedish Hernia Register and the Danish Hernia Database show that groin hernia repair in local anesthesia is associated with a significantly increased risk of reoperations for recurrence [70], [71].

Register and quality improvement

The nationwide Danish Hernia Database and Collaboration with two annual meetings discussing its own results and those of others has led to more than 50% reduction in reoperation rates for recurrence [72].

Femoral hernia

A total of 3970 primary femoral hernia repairs from the Danish Hernia Database [73] were analyzed; 27.3% occurred in men. There were 2413 elective repairs (60.8%) and 1557 emergency procedures (39.2%). In a multivariate analysis, laparoendoscopic repair was found to result in reduced risk of reoperation for recurrence compared to open repair. The risk of reoperation for recurrence was higher in women. Furthermore, the laparoscopic approach seemed to reduce the risk of subsequent occurrence of an inguinal hernia in the same groin [73].

Postoperative complications

In a database study, complications were associated with recurrence (3.2% vs. 1.7%; p<0.05) [74]. Complications did not significantly increase the risk of recurrence in open hernia repair [odds ratio (OR)=1.49; 95% CI=0.97–2.30; p=0.069]. Complications after laparoscopic repair were significantly associated with increased risk of recurrence (OR=7.86; 95% CI=3.46–17.85; p<0.05) [74].

Center volume

Centers reporting fewer than 50 procedures a year in the Danish Hernia Database had a significantly higher cumulative reoperation rate for recurrence compared to centers reporting more than 50 procedures a year (9.97% vs. 6.06%; p<0.001) [75].

Surgeon volume

Surgeon volume of less than 25 cases per year for open inguinal hernia repair was independently associated with higher rates of reoperation for recurrence [76]. In the Herniamed Hernia Register, univariable analysis (1.03% vs. 0.73%; p=0.047) and multivariable analysis (OR=1.494; 95% CI=1.065–2.115; p=0.023) revealed that low-volume surgeons (<25 procedures per year) had a significantly higher recurrence rate after laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair (≥25 procedures per year) [77].

In the Swedish Hernia Register, there was a significantly higher rate of reoperations for recurrence in surgeons who carried out one to five repairs in a year than in surgeons who carried out more repairs [78].

Conclusion

Patient-specific risk factors for inguinal hernia recurrence have already been published in detailed reviews [57], [79], [80]. The present review focuses exclusively on the surgical risk factors for recurrence after primary inguinal hernia repair. This has identified several risk factors for inguinal hernia recurrence after the primary operation, which can be influenced by the surgeon and their expertise. This also includes factors related to the conduct of the operation. If the evidence-based influencing factors for inguinal hernia recurrence are taken into account, the surgeon can assure a good outcome for patients with regard to the recurrence rate. It can probably even be assumed that the surgical risk factors for recurrent inguinal hernia after the primary operation play a greater role than the patient-specific factors. Therefore, they should definitely be observed.

References

  • [1]

    Köckerling F, Jacob D, Wiegank W, et al. Endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent male unilateral inguinal hernias: are there differences in the outcome? Surg Endosc 2016;30:1146–1155. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [2]

    Köckerling F, Koch A, Lorenz R, Reinpold W, Hukauf M, Schug-Pass C. Open repair of primary versus recurrent male unilateral inguinal hernias: perioperative complications and 1-year follow-up. World J Surg 2016;40:813–825. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [3]

    Köckerling F, Koch A, Lorenz R, Schug-Pass C, Stechemesser B, Reinpold W. How long do we need to follow-up our hernia patients to find the real recurrence rate? Front Surg 2015;2:24. Google Scholar

  • [4]

    Magnusson N, Nordin P, Hedberg M, Gunnarsson U, Sandblom G. The time profile of groin hernia recurrences. Hernia 2010;14: 341–344. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Simons MP, Aufenacker TJ, Berrevoet F, et al. 2017. World Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management. www.herniasurge.com. Zugegriffen: 09.01.2017. 

  • [6]

    Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 2009;13:343–403. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    Bittner R, Arreguie ME, Bisgaard T, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2773–2843. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Poelman MM, van den Heuvel B, Deelder JD, et al. EAES Consensus Development Conference on endoscopic repair of groin hernias. Surg Endosc 2013;27:3505–3519. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Miserez M, Peeters E, Aufenacker T, et al. Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 2014;18:151–163. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, et al. Update of guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia (International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc 2015;29:289–321. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11]

    EU Hernia Trialists Colooaboration. Repair of groin hernia with synthetic mesh: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2002;235:322–332. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [12]

    Scott NW, McCormack K, Graham P, Go PM, Ross SJ, Grant AM. Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;4:CD002197. Google Scholar

  • [13]

    Bittner R, Sauerland S, Schmedt CG. Comparison of endoscopic techniques vs. Shouldice and other open nonmesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 2005;19:605–615. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Amato B, Moja L, Panico S, et al. Shouldice technique versus other open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD001543. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [15]

    Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L, et al.; Danish Hernia Database Collaboration Quality assessment of 26,304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 2001;358:1124–1128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16]

    Bisgaard T, Bay-Nielsen M, Christensen IJ, Kehlet H. Risk of recurrence 5 years or more after primary Lichtenstein mesh and suture inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2007;94:1038–1040. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    Chung RS, Rowland DY. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic vs. conventional inguinal hernia repairs. Surg Endosc 1999;13:689–694. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B, Memon MI, Abrams KR. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2003;90:1479–1492. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R. Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs. Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 2005;19:188–199. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20]

    O’Reilly EA, Burke JP, O’Connell PR. A meta-analysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Ann Surg 2012;255:846–853. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21]

    Bobo Z, Nan W, Quin Q, Tao W, Jianguo L, Xianli H. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing Lichtenstein and totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic herniaplasty in treatment of inguinal hernias. J Surg Res 2014;192:409–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22]

    Wake BL, McCormack K, Fraser C, Vale L, Perez J, Grant AM. Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) vs. totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CD004703. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [23]

    McCormack K, Wake BL, Fraser C, Vale L, Perez J, Grant A. Transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Hernia 2005;9:109–114. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [24]

    Bracale U, Melillo P, Pignata G, et al. Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis Surg Endosc 2012;26:3355–3366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [25]

    Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Bartsch DK, et al. Transabdominal preperitoneal versus totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Am J Surg 2013;206:245–252. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [26]

    Smietanski M, Smietanska IA, Modrzejewski A, Simons MP, Aufenacker TJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis on heavy and lightweight polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty. Hernia 2012;16:519–528. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [27]

    Uzzaman MM, Ratnasingham K, Ashraf N. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2012;16:505–518. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [28]

    Sajid MS, Leaver C, Baig MK, Sains P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2012;99:29–37. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [29]

    Zhong C, Wu B, Yang Z, et al. A meta-analysis comparing lightweight meshes with heavyweight meshes in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Surg Innov 2013;20:24–31. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [30]

    Gao M, Han J, Tian J, Yang K. Vypro II mesh for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2010;251:838–842. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [31]

    Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Alam F, Tang TY, Walsh SR, Sadat U. Partially or completely absorbable versus nonabsorbable mesh repair for inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2010;20:213–219. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [32]

    Currie A, Andrew H, Tonsi A, Hurley PR, Taribagli S. Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2126–2133. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [33]

    Fang Z, Zhou J, Ren F, Liu D. Self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2014;207:773–781. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [34]

    Pandanaboyana S, Mittapalli D, Rao A, Prasad R, Ahmad N. Meta-analysis of self-gripping mesh (Progrip) versus sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Surgeon 2014;12:87–93. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [35]

    Li J, Ji Z, Li Y. The comparison of self-gripping mesh and sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: the results of meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2014;259:1080–1085. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [36]

    Sajid MS, Farag S, Singh KK, Miles WF. Systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials comparing the role of self-gripping mesh against suture mesh fixation in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair. Updates Surg 2014;66:189–196. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [37]

    Zhang C, Li F, Zhang H, Zhong W, Shi D, Zhao Y. Self-gripping versus sutured mesh for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. J Surg Res 2013;185:653–660. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [38]

    Köhler G, Lechner M, Mayer F, et al. Self-gripping meshes for Lichtenstein repair. Do we need additional suture fixation? World J Surg 2016;40:298–308. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [39]

    Ladwa N, Sajid MS, Sains P, Baig MK. Suture mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Surg 2013;11:128–135. Google Scholar

  • [40]

    de Goede B, Klitsie PJ, van Kempen BJ, et al. Meta-analysis of glue versus sutured mesh fixation for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2013;100:735–742. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [41]

    Liu H, Zheng X, Gu Y, Gua S. A meta-analysis examining the use of fibrin glue mesh fixation versus suture mesh fixation in open inguinal hernia repair. Dig Surg 2014;31:444–451. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [42]

    Sanders DL, Waydia S. A systematic review of randomized control trials assessing mesh fixation in open inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2014;18:165–176. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [43]

    Novik B, Nordin P, Skullman S, Dalenbäck J, Enochsson L. More recurrences after hernia mesh fixation with short-term absorbable sutures. Arch Surg 2011;146:12–17. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [44]

    Teng YJ, Pan SM, Liu YL, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of fixation versus nonfixation of mesh in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2849–2858. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [45]

    Tam KW, Liang HH, Chai CY. Outcomes of staple fixation of mesh versus nonfixation in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 2010;34:3065–3074. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [46]

    Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L, Hutson K, Sains P, Baig MK. A meta-analysis examining the use of tacker fixation versus no-fixation of mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Int J Surg 2012;10:224–231. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [47]

    Kaul A, Hutfless S, Le H, et al. Staple versus fibrin glue fixation in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2012;26:1269–1278. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [48]

    Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L, McFall M, Baig MK, Sains P. A meta-analysis examining the use of tacker mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 2013;206:103–111. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [49]

    Shan NS, Fullwood C, Siriwardena AK, Sheen AJ. Mesh fixation at laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis comparing tissue glue and tack fixation. World J Surg 2014;38:2558–2570. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [50]

    Li J, Ji Z, Zhang W. Staple fixation against adhesive fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2015;25:471–477. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [51]

    Antoniou SA, Köhler G, Antoniou GA, Muysoms FE, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing nonpentrating vs. mechanical mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 2016;211:239–249.e2. Google Scholar

  • [52]

    Shi Z, Fax X, Zhai S, Zhong X, Huang D. Fibrin glue versus staple for mesh fixation in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Surg Endosc 2017;31:527–537. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [53]

    Mayer F, Niebuhr H, Lechner M, et al. When is mesh fixation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair necessary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4363–4371. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [54]

    Fenger AQ, Helvind NM, Pommergaard HC, Burcharth J, Rosenberg J. Fibrin sealant for mesh fixation in laparoscopic groin hernia repair does not increase long-term recurrence. Surg Endosc 2016;30:986–992. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [55]

    Seker D, Oztuna D, Kulacoglu H, Genc Y, Akcil M. Mesh size in Lichtenstein repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the importance of mesh size. Hernia 2013;17:167–175. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [56]

    Stylianidis G, Haapamäki MM, Sund M, Nilsson E, Nordin P. Management of the hernial sac in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2010;97:415–419. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [57]

    Burcharth J. The epidemiology and risk factors for recurrence after inguinal hernia surgery. Dan Med J 2014;61:B4846. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [58]

    Burcharth J, Andresen K, Pommergaard HC, Bisgaard T, Rosenberg J. Direct inguinal hernias and anterior surgical approach are risk factors for female inguinal hernia recurrences. Langebecks Arch Surg 2014;399:71–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [59]

    Burcharth J, Andresen K, Pommergaard HC, Bisgaard T, Rosenberg J. Recurrence patterns of direct and indirect inguinal hernias in a nationwide population in Denmark. Surgery 2014;155:173–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [60]

    Bringman S, Holmberg H, Österberg J. Location of recurrent groin hernias at TEP after Lichtenstein repair: a study based on the Swedish Hernia Register. Hernia 2016;20:387–391. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [61]

    Bay-Nielsen M, Nordin P, Nilsson E, Kehlet H; Danish Hernia Data Base and the Swedish Hernia Data Base. Operative findings in recurrent hernia after a Lichtenstein procedure. Am J Surg 2001;182:134–136. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [62]

    Andresen K, Bisgaard T, Rosenberg J. Sliding inguinal hernia is a risk factor for recurrence. Langebecks Arch Surg 2015;400:101–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [63]

    Lilly MC, Arregui ME. Lipomas of the cord and round ligament. Ann Surg 2002;235:586–590. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [64]

    Lau H. Sliding lipoma: an indirect inguinal hernia without a peritoneal sac. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2004;14:57–59. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [65]

    Carilli S, Alper A, Emre A. Inguinal cord lipomas. Hernia 2004;8:252–254. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [66]

    Nasr AO, Tormey S, Walsh TN. Lipoma of the cord and round ligament: an overlooked diagnosis? Hernia 2005;9:245–247. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [67]

    Kukleta JF. Causes of recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Minim Access Surg 2006;2:187–191. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [68]

    Lau H. Recurrence following endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty. Hernia 2007;11:415–418. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [69]

    van der Linden W, Warg A, Nordin P. National register study of operating time and outcome in hernia repair. Arch Surg 2011;146:1198–1203. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [70]

    Nordin P, Haapaniemi S, van der Linden W, Nilsson E. Choice of anesthesia and risk of reoperation for recurrence in groin hernia repair. Ann Surg 2004;240:187–192. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [71]

    Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen M. Local anaesthesia as a risk factor for recurrence after groin hernia repair. Hernia 2008;12:507–509. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [72]

    Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen M, Nationwide quality improvement of groin hernia repair from the Danish Hernia Database of 87,840 patients from 1998 to 2005. Hernia 2008;12:1–7. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [73]

    Andresen K, Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Wara P, Rosenberg J. Reoperation rates for laparoscopic vs. open repair of femoral hernias in Denmark. A nationwide analysis. JAMA Surg 2014;149:853–857. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [74]

    Bouras G, Burns EM, Howell AM, Bottle A, Athanasiou T, Darzi A. Linked hospital and primary care database analysis of the impact of short-term complications on recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-017-1575-1. Epub ahead of print. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [75]

    Andresen K, Friis-Andersen H, Rosenberg J. Laparoscopic repair of primary inguinal hernia performed in public hospitals or low-volume centers have increased risk of reoperation for recurrence. Surg Innov 2016;23:142–147. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [76]

    Aquina CT, Probst CP, Kelly KN, et al. The pitfalls of inguinal herniorrhaphy: surgeons volume matters. Surgery 2015;185:736–746. Google Scholar

  • [77]

    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Kraft B, Hukauf M, Kuthe A, Schug-Pass C. Does surgeons volume matter in the outcome of endoscopic inguinal hernia repair? Surg Endosc 2017;31:573–585. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [78]

    Nordin P, van der Linden W. Volume of procedures and risk of recurrence after repair of groin hernia: national register study. Br Med J 2008;336:934–937. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [79]

    Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Bisgaard T, Rosenberg J. Patient-related risk factors for recurrence after inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Surg Innov 2015;22:303–317. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [80]

    Gopal SV, Warrier A. Recurrence after groin hernia repair – revisited. Int J Surg 2013;11:374–377. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Supplementary Material:

The article (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0013) offers reviewer assessments as supplementary material.

About the article

Received: 2017-02-21

Accepted: 2017-03-09

Published Online: 2017-04-13


Author Statement

Research funding: Authors state no funding involved. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest. Informed consent: Informed consent is not applicable. Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animals use.

Author Contributions

Henning Niebuhr: literature search, selection of relevant papers, writing of original draft, writing review and editing. Ferdinand Köckerling: literature search, selection of relevant papers, writing of original draft, writing review and editing.


Citation Information: Innovative Surgical Sciences, Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 53–59, ISSN (Online) 2364-7485, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0013.

Export Citation

©2017 Niebuhr H., Köckerling F., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in