• F Köckerling, A Koch, D Adolf, T Keller, R Lorenz, R H Fortelny, and C Schug-Pass.
• Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School, Vivantes Hospital, Neue Bergstrasse 6, 13585, Berlin, Germany. ferdinand.koeckerling@vivantes.de.
• World J Surg. 2018 Jul 1; 42 (7): 2001-2010.

BackgroundIn the new international guidelines only the mesh-based Lichtenstein, TEP and TAPP techniques are recommended. This present analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry compares the outcome for Shouldice versus Lichtenstein, TEP and TAPP.MethodsPropensity score matching analyses were performed to obtain homogeneous comparison groups for Shouldice versus Lichtenstein (n = 2115/2608; 81.1%), Shouldice versus TEP (n = 2225/2608; 85.3%) and Shouldice versus TAPP (2400/2608; 92.0%).ResultsThe most important characteristics of the Shouldice patient collective were younger patients with a mean age of 40 years, a large proportion of women of 30%, a mean BMI value of 24 and a proportion of defect sizes up to 3 cm of over 85%. For this selected patient collective, propensity score matched-pair analysis did not identify any difference in the perioperative and one-year follow-up outcome compared with TAPP, fewer intraoperative (0.5 vs. 1.3%; p = 0.009) but somewhat more postoperative complications (2.3 vs. 1.5%; p = 0.050) compared with TEP and advantages with regard to pain at rest (4.6 vs. 6.1%; p = 0.039) and on exertion (10.0 vs. 13.4%; p < 0.001) compared with the Lichtenstein technique.ConclusionFor a selected group of patients the Shouldice technique can be used for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair while achieving an outcome comparable to that of Lichtenstein, TEP and TAPP operations.

19 keywords...

hide…