Cargando…

Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases

BACKGROUD: Recently, laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) has gained increased popularity for pediatric inguinal hernia repair. To improve cosmesis, we developed single incision LPEC (SILPEC). The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of SILPEC compared with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amano, Hizuru, Tanaka, Yujiro, Kawashima, Hiroshi, Deie, Kyoichi, Fujiogi, Michimasa, Suzuki, Keisuke, Morita, Kaori, Iwanaka, Tadashi, Uchida, Hiroo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5715036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28597284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5472-6
_version_ 1783283676750020608
author Amano, Hizuru
Tanaka, Yujiro
Kawashima, Hiroshi
Deie, Kyoichi
Fujiogi, Michimasa
Suzuki, Keisuke
Morita, Kaori
Iwanaka, Tadashi
Uchida, Hiroo
author_facet Amano, Hizuru
Tanaka, Yujiro
Kawashima, Hiroshi
Deie, Kyoichi
Fujiogi, Michimasa
Suzuki, Keisuke
Morita, Kaori
Iwanaka, Tadashi
Uchida, Hiroo
author_sort Amano, Hizuru
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUD: Recently, laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) has gained increased popularity for pediatric inguinal hernia repair. To improve cosmesis, we developed single incision LPEC (SILPEC). The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of SILPEC compared with traditional open repair (OR). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 children who underwent inguinal hernia repair between April 2005 and August 2014. Nine hundred and ninety-five patients underwent OR and 1033 patients underwent SILPEC. Medical records were reviewed with respect to operative time, recurrence, incidence of contralateral metachronous inguinal hernia (CMIH), and complications. Patient satisfaction with cosmetic result was also investigated using questionnaires sent by mail. RESULTS: All SILPEC procedures were completed without conversion. Operative time was longer in the SILPEC group than in the OR group for both unilateral and bilateral surgery regardless of sex (unilateral male: p = 0.0006, unilateral female: p < 0.0001, bilateral male: p < 0.0001, bilateral female: p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence rate (p = 0.43). The incidence of CMIH was significantly higher in the OR than in the SILPEC group (p < 0.0001). No postoperative testicular atrophy was found in either group. There was no statistically significant difference in ascending testis (p = 0.09), but the frequency of surgical site infection was higher in the SILPEC than in the OR group (p = 0.0013). According to the questionnaire, operative scar was more invisible in the SILPEC than in the OR group (p < 0.0001), but both procedures had equally high levels of satisfaction for cosmetic results (p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: SILPEC proved to be a safe and feasible procedure compared with OR with an equally low recurrence rate, more effectiveness for preventing CMIH, and more invisible scar.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5715036
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57150362017-12-11 Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases Amano, Hizuru Tanaka, Yujiro Kawashima, Hiroshi Deie, Kyoichi Fujiogi, Michimasa Suzuki, Keisuke Morita, Kaori Iwanaka, Tadashi Uchida, Hiroo Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUD: Recently, laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) has gained increased popularity for pediatric inguinal hernia repair. To improve cosmesis, we developed single incision LPEC (SILPEC). The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of SILPEC compared with traditional open repair (OR). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 children who underwent inguinal hernia repair between April 2005 and August 2014. Nine hundred and ninety-five patients underwent OR and 1033 patients underwent SILPEC. Medical records were reviewed with respect to operative time, recurrence, incidence of contralateral metachronous inguinal hernia (CMIH), and complications. Patient satisfaction with cosmetic result was also investigated using questionnaires sent by mail. RESULTS: All SILPEC procedures were completed without conversion. Operative time was longer in the SILPEC group than in the OR group for both unilateral and bilateral surgery regardless of sex (unilateral male: p = 0.0006, unilateral female: p < 0.0001, bilateral male: p < 0.0001, bilateral female: p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence rate (p = 0.43). The incidence of CMIH was significantly higher in the OR than in the SILPEC group (p < 0.0001). No postoperative testicular atrophy was found in either group. There was no statistically significant difference in ascending testis (p = 0.09), but the frequency of surgical site infection was higher in the SILPEC than in the OR group (p = 0.0013). According to the questionnaire, operative scar was more invisible in the SILPEC than in the OR group (p < 0.0001), but both procedures had equally high levels of satisfaction for cosmetic results (p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: SILPEC proved to be a safe and feasible procedure compared with OR with an equally low recurrence rate, more effectiveness for preventing CMIH, and more invisible scar. Springer US 2017-06-08 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5715036/ /pubmed/28597284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5472-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Amano, Hizuru
Tanaka, Yujiro
Kawashima, Hiroshi
Deie, Kyoichi
Fujiogi, Michimasa
Suzuki, Keisuke
Morita, Kaori
Iwanaka, Tadashi
Uchida, Hiroo
Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases
title Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases
title_full Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases
title_fullStr Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases
title_short Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases
title_sort comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (silpec) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5715036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28597284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5472-6
work_keys_str_mv AT amanohizuru comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT tanakayujiro comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT kawashimahiroshi comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT deiekyoichi comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT fujiogimichimasa comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT suzukikeisuke comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT moritakaori comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT iwanakatadashi comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases
AT uchidahiroo comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopicpercutaneousextraperitonealclosuresilpecandopenrepairforpediatricinguinalherniaasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudyof2028cases