Dataset Information

Contralateral surgical exploration during inguinal hernia repair in infants (HERNIIA trial): study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) is high in infants with an inguinal hernia (5-30%), with the highest risk in infants aged 6 months or younger. MCIH is associated with the risk of incarceration and necessitates a second operation. This might be avoided by contralateral exploration during primary surgery. However, contralateral exploration may be unnecessary, leads to additional operating time and costs and may result in additional complications of surgery and anaesthesia. Thus, there is no consensus whether contralateral exploration should be performed routinely.

Methods

The Hernia-Exploration-oR-Not-In-Infants-Analysis (HERNIIA) study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside to study the (cost-)effectiveness of contralateral exploration during unilateral hernia repair. Infants aged 6 months or younger who need to undergo primary unilateral hernia repair will be randomised to contralateral exploration or no contralateral exploration (n = 378 patients). Primary endpoint is the proportion of infants that need to undergo a second operation related to inguinal hernia within 1 year after primary repair. Secondary endpoints include (a) total duration of operation(s) (including anaesthesia time) and hospital admission(s); (b) complications of anaesthesia and surgery; and (c) participants' health-related quality of life and distress and anxiety of their families, all assessed within 1 year after primary hernia repair. Statistical testing will be performed two-sided with α = .05 and according to the intention-to-treat principle. Logistic regression analysis will be performed adjusted for centre and possible confounders. The economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective and all relevant costs will be measured, valued and analysed.

Discussion

This study evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of contralateral surgical exploration during unilateral inguinal hernia repair in children younger than 6 months with a unilateral inguinal hernia.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03623893 . Registered on August 9, 2018 Netherlands Trial Register NL7194. Registered on July 24, 2018 Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) NL59817.029.18. Registered on July 3, 2018.

SUBMITTER: Dreuning KMA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8481323 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundTypically, in-person follow-up in clinic is utilized after outpatient inguinal hernia repair. Studies have shown that phone follow-up may be successfully used for the detection of postoperative hernia recurrences. However, no studies have evaluated the detection rates of other postoperative complications, such as emergency department visits and readmissions, with the utilization of phone follow-up after inguinal hernia repair. The objective of our study was to investigate the safety of a phone follow-up care pathway following elective, outpatient inguinal hernia repair.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, adult patients who underwent elective, outpatient inguinal hernia repair between 2013 and 2019 at a large academic health system in the Midwest United States were identified from the electronic health record. Patients were categorized by type of postoperative follow-up: in-person or phone follow-up. Baseline demographics, operative, and postoperative data were compared between follow-up groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate predictors of having any related emergency department (ED) visit/readmission/reoperation within 90 days.ResultsWe included 2009 patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia repair during the study period. 321 patients had in-person follow-up only, while 1,688 patients had phone follow-up. There was a higher rate of laparoscopic repair in the phone follow-up group (85.4% vs. 53.0% for in-person follow-up). There were no differences in rates of related 90-day ED visits, readmissions, and reoperations between the phone and in-person follow-up groups. On multivariable logistic regression, receipt of phone follow-up was not a predictor of having 90-day ED visits, readmissions, or reoperations (OR 1.30, 95% CI [0.83, 2.05]).ConclusionsPatients who underwent phone follow-up had similarly low rates of adverse outcomes to those with in-person follow-up. Phone follow-up protocols may be implemented as an alternative for patients and provide a means to decrease healthcare utilization following inguinal hernia repair.