• Users Online: 14
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 159-164

Current status of inguinal hernia management: A review


1 Department of Surgery, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
2 Department of Clinical Research, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA

Date of Submission25-Jul-2022
Date of Decision20-Sep-2022
Date of Acceptance06-Oct-2022
Date of Web Publication24-Dec-2022

Correspondence Address:
Robert J Fitzgibbons
Department of Surgery, Creighton University School of Medicine, Creighton University Education Building, 7710 Mercy Road, Suite 501, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-2368
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_36_22

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Groin hernias are the most common reason for primary care physicians to refer patients for surgical management. Patients often present with a bulge in the groin that is associated with pain in two-thirds of cases. Diagnosis is usually clinical, with physical exam and history being sufficient enough to confirm diagnosis without imaging. Groin hernias may be associated with morbidity and can become complicated by incarceration or strangulation, requiring emergent surgical repair. However, the risk of strangulation is sufficiently low in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with inguinal hernias that an initial approach of watchful waiting is safe and appropriate. Chronic pain and hernia recurrence are other potential complications that support a watchful waiting approach in asymptomatic patients. Patients with symptomatic hernias should be offered surgical repair. The objective of this paper is to review the current status of the clinical diagnosis and management of patients with inguinal hernias.

Keywords: Asymptomatic, incarceration, inguinal hernia, strangulation, symptomatic, watchful waiting


How to cite this article:
McBee PJ, Walters RW, Fitzgibbons RJ. Current status of inguinal hernia management: A review. Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg 2022;5:159-64

How to cite this URL:
McBee PJ, Walters RW, Fitzgibbons RJ. Current status of inguinal hernia management: A review. Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Jan 28];5:159-64. Available from: http://www.herniasurgeryjournal.org/text.asp?2022/5/4/159/365088




  Introduction Top


Attempts to successfully manage groin hernias date back to the earliest civilizations. The Egyptian tomb of Ankh-ma-Hor at Saqqara circa 2500 BC includes an image of a possible groin hernia repair.[1] The term “hernia” is derived from the Latin word “bud” or “offshoot,” and the condition is due to an organ protruding through the body cavity that normally contains it. In 1562, Gabrielle Falloppio first described the inguinal ligament and established the landmark as an integral component of groin hernia repair.[2] Hesselbach described the triangle that bears his name in 1816, further clarifying the anatomy used to distinguish various hernias. The term “groin hernia” refers to three distinct types of hernias: indirect inguinal, direct inguinal, and femoral. The relationship to the inguinal ligament and inferior epigastric vessels defines them. Direct and indirect hernias are above the inguinal ligament; direct hernias present medial to the inferior epigastric vessels and protrude through the posterior wall of the inguinal canal, whereas indirect hernias present laterally and pass through the internal inguinal ring. Femoral hernias present below the inguinal ligament and medial to the femoral vessels.

Historically, operative management of a groin hernia was discouraged because of consistently poor results. However, in 1889, Bassini described a novel technique of suturing the transversalis fascia, transversus abdominis muscle, and internal oblique muscle (Bassini’s famous “triple layer”) to the inguinal ligament, drastically improving patients’ outcomes.[3] This pure tissue repair became the gold standard for groin hernia repair for most of the twentieth century. More than 70 modifications of Bassini’s tissue technique were subsequently described, with the multi-layer Shouldice repair perhaps being the most significant.[4] In 1984, Lichtenstein popularized an alternative “tension-free” prosthetic repair which involves the use of mesh to reinforce the posterior wall of the inguinal canal. Later, laparoscopic minimally invasive approaches (MISs) were introduced and resulted in faster recovery and decreased post-operative pain.[5] More recently, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy using robotic technology has become increasingly popular.[6]

Throughout the twentieth century, it was recommended that all groin hernias should be surgically repaired, regardless of whether the patient presented with symptoms or not as repair is the definitive treatment.[7] This recommendation was based on the assumption that groin hernias left untreated would inevitably result in an unacceptable rate of the life-threatening complications of bowel obstruction or strangulation. However, in 2006, an approach of “watchful waiting” emerged as a viable and safe option for patients who were asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic after Fitzgibbons demonstrated minimal risk of bowel obstruction or strangulation in this subset of patients.[8] This study only evaluated men, and extrapolation of findings to women with hernias cannot be made.


  Epidemiology and Risk Factors Top


Groin hernias are the most common reason for primary care physicians to refer patients for surgical management; over 1.6 million groin hernias are diagnosed in the USA annually, with an incidence of 315 per 100,000.[9] Moreover, more than 500,000 groin hernias are surgically repaired each year with 217 per 100,000 of the population undergoing hernia repair annually.[9],[10] The prevalence of hernia repair increases with age with 0.25% of patients 18 years of age to 4.2% in patients 75–80 years of age undergoing repair.[11],[12] In the US, inguinal hernias comprise 97% of groin hernia repairs (90.2% males, 9.8% females) and femoral hernias comprise 3% of groin hernia repairs (29.8% males, 70.2% females).[11]

Well-established risk factors for the development of inguinal hernias include male sex, increased age, and genetic predisposition.[11],[13] Groin hernias are significantly more common in men as lifetime risk of groin hernia is an estimated 27% in men compared with 3% in women.[9] Femoral hernias are more common in women compared to men on a percentile basis, but women with a clinical groin hernia are still five times more likely to have an inguinal hernia than a femoral hernia.[14] The risk of hernia development in general gradually increases with age with a bimodal spike in prevalence in the children less than 5 years of age and men greater than 75 years of age.[11] A genetic predisposition to developing inguinal hernia exists as well; having a first degree relative with an inguinal hernia increases the risk of developing a hernia.[15] Other factors that have been reported to potentially increase risk include smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower body mass index, high intrabdominal pressure, thoracic or abdominal aortic aneurysm, patent processes vaginalis, history of open appendectomy, peritoneal dialysis, and collagen vascular disease.[16]


  Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis Top


Patients typically present with a bulge in the groin that is associated with pain in two-thirds of cases.[17] Painful hernias are most frequently described as a dull aching, heavy, dragging, or burning sensation. Maneuvers that increase intra-abdominal pressure, such as straining, lifting, or coughing, may exacerbate pain or hernia size by causing intra-abdominal contents to be pushed through the fascial defect.[18] Some patients may complain of worsening symptoms at the end of the day or after increased activity. Minor symptomatic cases may be temporarily improved by lying down or reducing the hernia manually. Severe or unbearable pain, that is, sudden onset, suggests possible strangulation and should be treated as an emergency.

Inguinal hernias are primarily diagnosed by history and physical examination with secondary imaging rarely needed.[19] Some patients with a clinical history suggestive of a hernia with no physical findings may need additional imaging studies to rule in or rule out the diagnosis. Visual examination should be performed first, by having the patient stand as the physician inspects for a visible bulge while seated in front of the patient. If needed, the patient should be directed to perform a Valsalva maneuver to promote hernia visibility. If no visible bulge is present, the physician may palpate the base of the scrotum or labia majora toward the pubic tubercle using the index finger.[20] The goal is to insert the index finger into the external ring, and upon the patient performing a Valsalva maneuver, a soft impulse may be appreciated.[20] Imaging with non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) with Valsalva is recommended for diagnosing groin hernias when physical examination is insufficient.[21] Ultrasound (US) is less expensive but is highly dependent on the expertise of the examiner.[21] The sensitivity values for MRI, CT, and US are 0.91, 0.77, and 0.56, respectively. Whereas the specificity values of MRI, CT, and US are 0.92, 0.25, and 0, respectively.


  Management Top


Watchful waiting

Management of inguinal hernias has evolved over time to improve patient safety and quality of life. Recent evidence from three randomized control trials established that for patients who present asymptomatically or minimally symptomatic and do not wish to undergo elective hernia repair, a conservative approach of “watchful waiting” is a safe alternative.[8],[22],[23][Table 1] and [Table 2] illustrate the significant comparisons and findings across all watchful waiting clinical trials. This has become especially important as surgeons and patients have begun to appreciate the problem of post-herniorrhaphy groin pain which occurs in a small percentage of patients undergoing an inguinal hernia repair. It is mild in most patients but may become incapacitating in some. When one puts this into perspective with other possible complications of an inguinal herniorrhaphy such as hemorrhage, infection, recurrence, and so forth, watchful waiting becomes an attractive alternative. Unfortunately, long-term follow-up of the watchful waiting trials has found that most patients, up to 68%, who do not elect to undergo immediate hernia repair will eventually be treated surgically due to worsening pain or lifestyle limitations from progression. Although it is safe to delay surgery for patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia, eventual surgical intervention is nearly inevitable if the patient lives long enough.[24]
Table 1: Comparison of watchful waiting randomized controlled trials

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison of crossover rates and long-term follow-up in Watchful Waiting Trials

Click here to view



  Surgical Treatment Top


Patients who present with a bowel obstruction or signs of strangulation (extremely tender groin mass and signs of sepsis, e.g., fever, tachycardia, hypotension, emesis, and confusion) due to their groin hernias require emergency surgery. Watchful waiting is not an appropriate treatment option for any patient with painful, symptomatic groin hernias. Patients with significant lifestyle limitations, such as reduced mobility, due to pain or other factors should be offered operative repair to improve their quality of life. It should be noted that incarceration is not synonymous with strangulation, nor will it inevitably lead to strangulation, as many patients with chronically incarcerated groin hernias are asymptomatic. Hernia repair is performed either as an open (tissue- or mesh-based) procedure or a minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) procedure.

The choice of which procedure is performed is most often based on surgeon expertise and access to resources, rather than patient factors.[25] Evidence-based practice guidelines recommend a tailored approach to inguinal hernia management based on the individual patient. For example, the guidelines recommend an MIS to bilateral inguinal hernia or recurrent inguinal hernia that was previously repaired with open surgery, thereby repairing both hernias in one operation, instead of two separate interventions.[26] Despite guidelines, however, it is estimated that only 42% of surgeons offer an MIS to this patient population.[27] Multiple factors influence which operative approach is performed, including the surgeon’s characteristics of age, practice type, and location. Patient factors that inform choice of approach include overall health, hernia characteristics, and type of original repair for recurrent hernias. One study interviewed surgeons to investigate other individual factors that led to practices outside of recommended guidelines, finding that access and resources, namely, the surgeon’s opportunity to operate on the robot at their institution, were significant factors that influenced approach as well.[25]

Open approach

The open repair with mesh (Lichtenstein tension-free) technique is the current gold standard of care for most patients with an inguinal hernia.[26] The use of prosthetic mesh is recommended because of its association with a 50%-75% lower risk of hernia recurrence, lower risk of chronic pain post-operatively, and an earlier return to work compared with a sutured repair.[28] The tissue (sutured) repair is performed in limited circumstances, most often when mesh is contraindicated, such as potential infection from a contaminated field. Among non-mesh open repairs, the Shouldice technique is recommended due to its lower risk of recurrence compared with other pure tissue repairs (e.g., McVay or Bassini techniques).[28] The recurrence rate with the Shouldice techniques is higher than that with the mesh techniques [odds ratio (OR) 3.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99–7.26] but lower than other pure tissue repairs (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.85).[29] The best results with the Shouldice procedure are seen in specialty clinics such as the Shouldice in Toronto, but are not reproduced in general practice.[30] A detailed discussion of other unique specialty tissue repairs such as the Onstep or the Desarda method are beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Minimally invasive approach (MIS)

Groin hernias can be repaired using laparoscopic techniques. Most often, the principle is to perform the repair in the preperitoneal space which is behind the muscular elements of the groin as opposed to the open approach which is performed anteriorly, referred to as a transabdominal preperitoneal (TAP) approach. A totally extraperitoneal approach (TEP) is also performed, with the potential advantage of avoiding intra-abdominal access through the peritoneum.

Open vs. minimally invasive

The outcomes of patients who have undergone open or minimally invasive inguinal repairs have been widely studied. A meta-analysis performed in 2019 reported on 16 trials including over 51,000 patients that compared open, TAPP, TEP, and robotic preperitoneal inguinal hernia repairs (rTAPP).[31] Ultimately, the study showed that all modalities were comparable in the short term. Among the trials, 35.5% underwent open, 33.5% TAPP, 30.7% TEP, and 0.3% rTAPP repairs.

The post-operative chronic pain RR was similar for TAPP vs. open (RR 0.53; 95% CrI 0.27–1.20), TEP vs. open (RR 0.86; 95% CrI 0.48–1.16), and TEP vs. TAPP (RR 1.70; 95% CrI 0.63–3.20). The recurrence RR was comparable when comparing TAPP vs. open (RR 0.96; 95% CrI 0.57–1.51), TEP vs. open (RR 1.0; 95% CrI 0.65–1.61), TEP vs. TAPP (RR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.63–2.10), and rTAPP vs. open (RR 0.98; 95% CrI 0.45–2.10). No differences were found in terms of post-operative hematoma, surgical site infection, urinary retention, and hospital length of stay. The authors concluded that the choice of the most suitable treatment should be based on individual surgeon expertise and tailored on each patient.

The chance of developing post-operative groin pain following hernia repair is an important point to discuss with patients before proceeding with surgery. It is reported that chronic post-operative is evident in approximately 8%-16% of the patients, without consideration of the surgical approach.[32],[33] Overall, it appears that MISs most likely result in less groin pain than open procedures. A meta-analysis completed in 2019 that evaluated 12 randomized trials and nearly 4,000 patients found that laparoscopic repair was associated with a reduced rate of acute pain compared with open repair (mean difference 1.19, CI -1.86, -0.51, P ≤ 0.0006) and reduced odds of chronic pain compared with open (OR 0.41, CI 0.30–0.56, P ≤ 0.00001).[34] The authors clearly addressed, however, that the trials were of variable methodological quality.

It is commonly believed that open inguinal hernia repair is thought to cause worse post-operative pain than minimally invasive surgery, and thus patients are often prescribed more opioids at discharge. One study investigated opioid use after surgery with open and MIS techniques.[35] The authors conducted a survey of 250 opioid naive hernia patients and converted opioid prescription doses into morphine equivalents, comparing opioid use across groups after surgery. Overall, there was no difference in opioid use by approach [open 15 (IQR 0, 60) morphine milligram equivalents vs. 9 (IQR 0, 50) minimally invasive surgery; P = 0.33]. More than one-third of patients used no opioids (open 38% vs. minimally invasive surgery 44%; P = 0.42). Bilateral repair was not associated with increased opioid use (univariate odds ratio 1.23, P = 0.58). Ultimately, the authors concluded that post-discharge opioid utilization was clinically similar between patients undergoing open and minimally invasive surgery inguinal hernia repair and those requiring unilateral or bilateral repair. They also suggested that 0–8 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone are sufficient for most opioid-naive patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair.

Most authorities agree that a minimally invasive procedure should be recommended for patients with bilateral inguinal hernias because both can be repaired through the same three minimal access ports, avoiding the need for bilateral groin incisions. A recurrent hernia after an open inguinal herniorrhaphy failure should also be repaired by an MIS method, as long as there are no contraindications to laparoscopy, e.g., severe adhesion, inability to tolerate general anesthesia, and so on.

Groin hernias in women

There is a paucity of data that investigates groin hernia outcomes in women; significant investigational efforts clearly remain. Some authors have reported the rate of emergency procedures in women, 14.5%-17.0%, is 3–4-fold higher than that in men.[36] Watchful waiting is not appropriate in women because of the increased incidence of hernia strangulation and difficulty in distinguishing inguinal from femoral hernias.[14] Thus, surgical repair is routinely recommended for non-pregnant women with groin hernias.[26] Pregnant women with a groin bulge which appears to be a hernia should have round ligament varicosities ruled out by ultrasound before considering surgery.[26]


  Economic Data Top


Recent economic data assessing the impact of watchful waiting on costs to the patient and hospital are lacking. Initially after Fitzgibbons published the US trial in 2006 describing watchful waiting as a safe alternative for asymptomatic inguinal hernia patients, Stroupe et al.[37] assessed the economic data from the trial and reported that conservative treatment with watchful waiting is also a responsible approach from a standpoint of cost-effectiveness. The authors used Medicare payment rates to estimate the costs of inpatient and outpatient care from the healthcare payer’s perspective. The surgical repair group exhibited a marginally higher cost of $1,831 compared with the watchful waiting group at 2 years of follow-up ($7,875 vs. $6,044). Additionally, the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the surgical repair group (1.724) was slightly higher than that of the watchful waiting group (1.693) with a mean difference of 0.031 (0.001–0.058). However, the cost per QALY gained from assignment to the repair group was $59,065 (95% CI $1,358–$322,765) per patient. The authors concluded that both watchful waiting and immediate surgery for inguinal hernias were reasonable from a cost-effective standpoint.

Additional studies assessing the financial impact and cost-effectiveness of watchful waiting compared to surgical repair are warranted to further understand the economic consequence on stakeholders.


  Conclusions Top


Inguinal hernias are a very common problem. Diagnosis is typically made from history and physical examination. Watchful waiting is a safe initial strategy for men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias, though most patients will eventually undergo operative repair within 10 years due to increasing pain or lifestyle limitations. The risk of hernia incarceration or strangulation is sufficiently low, however, if watchful waiting is the preferred management. Operative management should also be offered to patients and is a safe procedure, although post-operative pain may develop in some cases.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Kingsorth A, Sanders DL General introduction and history of hernia surgery. In: LeBlanc K, Kingsnorth A, Sanders D, editors. Management of Abdominal Hernias. Cham: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63251-3_1  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Sugumar K, Gupta M Anatomy, abdomen and pelvis, inguinal (Crural, Pouparts) ligament. [Updated 2021 Sep 18]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2022.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Summers JE Inguinal herniorrhaphy; methods of repair in use at the present time. Am J Surg 1950;80:540-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Amid PK Groin hernia repair: Open techniques. World J Surg 2005;29:1046-51.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: Systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-203, iii-iv.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Donkor C, Gonzalez A, Gallas MR, Helbig M, Weinstein C, Rodriguez J Current perspectives in robotic hernia repair. Robot Surg 2017;4:57-67.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hammoud M, Gerken J Inguinal hernia. [Updated August 22, 2021]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2022.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gibbs JO, Dunlop DD, Reda DJ, McCarthy M Jr, et al. Watchful waiting vs. repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006;295:285-92.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Cullen KA, Hall MJ, Golosinskiy A Ambulatory surgery in the United States, 2006. Natl Health Stat Report 2009;11:1-25.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Zendejas B, Ramirez T, Jones T, Kuchena A, Ali SM, Hernandez-Irizarry R, et al. Incidence of inguinal hernia repairs in Olmsted county, MN: A population-based study. Ann Surg 2013;257:520-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Burcharth J, Pedersen M, Bisgaard T, Pedersen C, Rosenberg J Nationwide prevalence of groin hernia repair. PLoS One 2013;8:e54367.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Rutkow IM Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83:1045-51, v-vi.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ruhl CE, Everhart JE Risk factors for inguinal hernia among adults in the US population. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:1154-61.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Koch A, Edwards A, Haapaniemi S, Nordin P, Kald A Prospective evaluation of 6895 groin hernia repairs in women. Br J Surg 2005;92:1553-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Burcharth J, Pedersen M, Bisgaard T, Pedersen CB, Rosenberg J Familial clustering and risk of groin hernia in children. BJS Open 2017;1:46-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lau H, Fang C, Yuen WK, Patil NG Risk factors for inguinal hernia in adult males: A case-control study. Surgery 2007;141:262-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Öberg S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J Etiology of inguinal hernias: A comprehensive review. Front Surg 2017;4:52.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
LeBlanc KE, LeBlanc LL, LeBlanc KA Inguinal hernias: Diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician 2013;87:844-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Kraft BM, Kolb H, Kuckuk B, Haaga S, Leibl BJ, Kraft K, et al. Diagnosis and classification of inguinal hernias. Surg Endosc 2003;17:2021-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bickley LS, Szilagyi PG, Bates B, et al, eds. Bates’ Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003. p. 359-72.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Miller J, Cho J, Michael MJ, Saouaf R, Towfigh S Role of imaging in the diagnosis of occult hernias. JAMA Surg 2014;149:1077-80.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
O’Dwyer PJ, Norrie J, Alani A, Walker A, Duffy F, Horgan P Observation or operation for patients with an asymptomatic inguinal hernia: A randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 2006;244:167-73.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
de Goede B, Wijsmuller AR, van Ramshorst GH, van Kempen BJ, Hop WCJ, Klitsie PJ, et al; INCA Trialists’ Collaboration. Watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2018;267:42-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Ramanan B, Arya S, Turner SA, Li X, Gibbs JO, et al; Investigators of the Original Trial. Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of a nonoperative strategy (watchful waiting) for men with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias. Ann Surg 2013;258:508-15.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Ehlers AP, Vitous CA, Sales A, Telem DA Exploration of factors associated with surgeon deviation from practice guidelines for management of inguinal hernias. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2023684.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 2018;22:1-165.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Vu JV, Gunaseelan V, Krapohl GL, Englesbe MJ, Campbell DA Jr, Dimick JB, et al. Surgeon utilization of minimally invasive techniques for inguinal hernia repair: A population-based study. Surg Endosc 2019;33:486-93.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
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. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002197. PMID: 12519568.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Amato B, Moja L, Panico S, Persico G, Rispoli C, Rocco N, et al. Shouldice technique versus other open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4:CD001543. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001543.pub3. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD001543. PMID: 19821279.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Bendavid R, Mainprize M, Iakovlev V Pure tissue repairs: A timely and critical revival. Hernia 2019;23:493-502.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Morlacchi A, et al. Primary inguinal hernia: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia 2019;23:473-84.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Aasvang EK, Gmaehle E, Hansen JB, Gmaehle B, Forman JL, Schwarz J, et al. Predictive risk factors for persistent postherniotomy pain. Anesthesiology 2010;112:957-69.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Andresen K, Burcharth J, Fonnes S, Hupfeld L, Rothman JP, Deigaard S, et al. Chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair with the Onstep versus the Lichtenstein technique, results of a double-blinded multicenter randomized clinical trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017;402:213-8.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Bullen NL, Massey LH, Antoniou SA, Smart NJ, Fortelny RH Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia 2019;23:461-72.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Knight AW, Habermann EB, Ubl DS, Zielinski MD, Thiels CA Opioid utilization in minimally invasive versus open inguinal hernia repair. Surgery 2019;166:752-7.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Köckerling F, Koch A, Lorenz R Groin hernias in women—A review of the literature. Front Surg 2019;6:4.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Stroupe KT, Manheim LM, Luo P, Giobbie-Hurder A, Hynes DM, Jonasson O, et al. Tension-free repair versus watchful waiting for men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias: A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:458-68.  Back to cited text no. 37
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Epidemiology and...
   Clinical Present...
  Management
  Surgical Treatment
  Economic Data
  Conclusions
   References
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed397    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded92    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal