Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Vs. Open Hernia Repair for Umbilical and - Paraumbilical Hernia
Creators
- 1. Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, Adichunchungiri Institute of Medical Sciences, B.G Nagar, Karnataka
- 2. Consultant, Plastic Surgery Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Naruvi Hospitals Vellore.
- 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Adichunchungiri Institute of Medical Sciences, B.G Nagara , Karnataka
- 4. Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Adichunchungiri Institute of Medical Sciences, B.G Nagara , Karnataka.
Description
Background: Umbilical and paraumbilical hernias are common conditions requiring surgical intervention. This study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open repair methods for these hernias. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted with 103 patients undergoing hernia repair, divided into laparoscopic (n=48) and open repair (n=55) groups. Outcomes measured included operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, return to normal activities, complications, and recurrence rates. Results: The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer mean operative time (90.83 ± 15.2 minutes) compared to the open repair group (52.91 ± 10.5 minutes, P<0.001). However, laparoscopic repair was associated with significantly lower postoperative pain scores at 6 hours (3.85 ± 0.989 vs. 4.95 ± 1.056, P<0.001) and 24 hours (2.04 ± 0.544 vs. 2.82 ± 0.645, P<0.001), shorter hospital stays (2.35 days vs. 3.65 days, P=0.001), and quicker return to normal activity (2.79 weeks vs. 3.85 weeks, P<0.001). Complication rates were lower in the laparoscopic group (10.42% vs. 36.36%, P=0.02), with no significant difference in recurrence rates between the groups (2.08% vs. 7.27%, P=0.227). Conclusion: Laparoscopic repair for umbilical and paraumbilical hernias offers significant benefits over open repair, including reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery, without compromising safety or efficacy.
Abstract (English)
Background: Umbilical and paraumbilical hernias are common conditions requiring surgical intervention. This study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open repair methods for these hernias. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted with 103 patients undergoing hernia repair, divided into laparoscopic (n=48) and open repair (n=55) groups. Outcomes measured included operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, return to normal activities, complications, and recurrence rates. Results: The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer mean operative time (90.83 ± 15.2 minutes) compared to the open repair group (52.91 ± 10.5 minutes, P<0.001). However, laparoscopic repair was associated with significantly lower postoperative pain scores at 6 hours (3.85 ± 0.989 vs. 4.95 ± 1.056, P<0.001) and 24 hours (2.04 ± 0.544 vs. 2.82 ± 0.645, P<0.001), shorter hospital stays (2.35 days vs. 3.65 days, P=0.001), and quicker return to normal activity (2.79 weeks vs. 3.85 weeks, P<0.001). Complication rates were lower in the laparoscopic group (10.42% vs. 36.36%, P=0.02), with no significant difference in recurrence rates between the groups (2.08% vs. 7.27%, P=0.227). Conclusion: Laparoscopic repair for umbilical and paraumbilical hernias offers significant benefits over open repair, including reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery, without compromising safety or efficacy.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue3,Article103.pdf
Files
(313.5 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:ebb0ef020252dfdef30e263f89db2ad8
|
313.5 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-03-10
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue3,Article103.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Jenkins JT, O'Dwyer PJ. Inguinal hernias. BMJ. 2008;336(7638):269-72. 2. McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD0 01785. 3. Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med. 2004 Apr 29;350(18):1819-27. 4. Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH, Klinge U, Kockerling F, Kuhry E, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Sauerland S, Schug-Pass C, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P. Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal Hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc. 2011 Sep; 25(9): 2773-843. 5. 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 Jan; 99 (1):29-37. 6. Poobalan AS, Bruce J, Smith WC, King PM, Krukowski ZH, Chambers WA. A review of chronic pain after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Clin J Pain. 2003 Jul-Aug;19(4):48-54. 7. Aufenacker TJ, de Lange DH, Burg MD, Kuiken BW, Hensen EF, Schoots IG, Jansen P, Jeekel J. The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in prevention of wound infection after Lichtenstein open mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia: a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2006 Dec;244(6): 292-8. 8. Grant AM. Laparoscopic versus open groin hernia repair: meta-analysis of randomised trials based on individual patient data. Hernia. 2002 Aug;6(3):123-9. 9. Felix E, Scott S, Crafton B, Geis P, Duncan T, Sewell R, McKernan B. Causes of recurrence after laparoscopic hernioplasty. A multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 1998 Mar;12(3):226-31. 10. O'Reilly EA, Burke JP, O'Connell PR. A metaanalysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Ann Surg. 2012 May;255(5):846-53. 11. McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003;(1):CD001785. 12. Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, et al. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;350(18):1819-1827. 13. Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, Bansal V, Bingener J, Bisgaard T, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal Hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surgical Endoscopy. 2011;25(9):2773-2843. 14. McCormack K, Wake BL, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review ofeffectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment. 2005;9 (14):1-203. 15. Pokorny H, Klingler A, Schmid T, Fortelny R, Hollinsky C, Kawji R, et al. Recurrence and complications after laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: results of a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Hernia. 2008; 12(4):385-389. 16. 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. British Journal of Surgery. 2012 Jan;99(1):29-37. 17. Felix E, Scott S, Crafton B, Geis P, Duncan T, Sewell R, et al. Causes of recurrence after laparoscopic hernioplasty. A multicenter study. Surgical Endoscopy. 1998 Mar;12(3):226-231. 18. O'Reilly EA, Burke JP, O'Connell PR. A metaanalysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Annals of Surgery. 2012 May;255(5):846-853. 19. Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of recurrent inguinal hernias after open herniotomy: a prospective cohort study. Hernia. 2003 Jun;7(2):85-88. 20. Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2009 Aug;13(4):343-403.