Dataset Information

Long-term outcomes of pediatric laparoscopic needled-assisted inguinal hernia repair: A 10-year experience.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) has gained wide acceptance over the past decade, although studies with longer term follow-up are lacking. We present one of the largest cohorts of children undergoing laparoscopic needle-assisted repair (LNAR) with long-term follow-up.

Methods

A clinical quality database was maintained for children ≤14 years of age who underwent laparoscopic needle-assisted repair between 2009 and 2017 with review of follow-up through 2019. De-identified data was reviewed.

Results

1023 patients with 1457 LNAR were included during the 10-year period. Mean age at surgery was 2.56 years (2 days to14 years). The overall hernia recurrence rate was 0.75% (11/1457). A total of four postoperative hydroceles required intervention. Preterm infant repair done <60w post conceptional age had a significantly lower recurrence rate (0.63%) than other patients (0.82%) (p < 0.01). 64.2% of patients had clinical follow-up over a period of 11 years with a mean follow-up of 5.97 years.

Conclusion

We present a large cohort study of consecutive pediatric laparoscopic hernia repairs followed over an 11-year period. LNAR is safe and effective for term and preterm patients with similar complication rates to other techniques, including open repair. Additionally, our results suggest that preterm infants may have superior outcomes with this method.

Level of evidence

Level III - Retrospective Comparative Study.

SUBMITTER: Garcia DI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7818020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study is to investigate the technique and practical significance of using a simple hernia needle in single-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy in pediatric patients.MethodsThe study conducted a retrospective analysis of all pediatric patients who underwent treatment for inguinal hernia using single-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy with a simple hernia needle at Yellow River Sanmenxia Hospital from June 2018 to May 2023. The medical records of all the children were collected, and clinical characteristics, procedural information, and follow-up data were carefully reviewed.ResultsA total of 848 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair, with ages ranging from 7 months to 13 years (2.99 ± 2.49 years), including 756 males and 92 females. A total of 528 cases of unilateral hernia and 310 cases of bilateral hernia were reported, with intra-operative findings revealing contralateral occult hernia in 253 cases. Single-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy was successfully completed in all patients, with no instances of conversion to open surgery. The mean operation time for unilateral hernia repair was (7.50 ± 4.80) min, while for bilateral hernia repair it was (11.55 ± 7.27) min. Five patients presented with subcutaneous emphysema, while two patients experienced a recurrence of inguinal hernia. No complications, such as scrotal hematoma, trocar umbilical hernia and testicular atrophy, were observed. The duration of the follow-up period ranged from 3 to 24 months.ConclusionThe promotion and utilization of single-port laparoscopy combined with a simple hernia needle in clinical practice are justified. Our initial investigation indicates that this surgical approach is both safe and dependable for the management of pediatric inguinal hernia. The procedure presents numerous benefits, including the utilization of uncomplicated instruments, straightforward operation, a clear curative impact, minimal tissue damage, rapid recovery, and the absence of scarring.

Project description:ImportanceDespite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.ObjectiveTo determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis.InterventionsStandard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection.ResultsA total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively; P?<?.001), higher median (interquartile range) cost ($3258 [$2568-$4118] vs $1421 [$1196-$1930], respectively; P?<?.001), and higher mean (SD) frustration levels on the NASA Task Load Index Scale (range, 1-100, with lower scores indicating lower cognitive workload) (32.7 [23.5] vs 20.1 [19.2], respectively; P?=?.004). There were no differences in ergonomics of the surgeons between the groups as measured by the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment instrument.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study showed no clinical benefit to the robotic approach to straightforward inguinal hernia repair compared with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic approach incurred higher costs and more operative time compared with the laparoscopic approach, with added surgeon frustration and no ergonomic benefit to surgeons.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816658.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children is increasingly performed as it allows contralateral inspection and potentially results in shorter operation time and less complications. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the superiority of laparoscopic versus open hernia repair is lacking.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed querying PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases. RCTs comparing laparoscopic with open hernia repair in children were considered eligible, without year and language restrictions. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the laparoscopic suturing technique (i.e., intracorporeal or extracorporeal).ResultsEight RCTs (n = 733 patients; age range 4 months-16 years) were included in this meta-analysis. Laparoscopic (LH) and open (OH) hernia repair was performed in 375 and 358 patients, respectively. Complications (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.79), recurrences (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.88), and MCIH rates (four RCTs, n = 343; pooled OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.86) were not different between the groups. LH resulted in shorter bilateral operation time (Five RCTs, n = 194; weighted mean difference (WMD) - 7.19, 95% CI - 10.04 to - 4.34). Unilateral operation time, length of hospital stay, and time to recovery were similar. There was insufficient evidence to assess postoperative pain and wound cosmesis, and evidence of substantial heterogeneity between the included studies. Subgroup analyses demonstrated less complications and shorter unilateral operation time for extracorporeal suturing and shorter length of hospital stay for intracorporeal suturing.Conclusions and relevanceNo definite conclusions to decide on the superiority of one of either treatment strategies can yet be drawn from the available literature. There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity and the clinical relevance of most estimated effects is very limited.