Purpose: Published evidence comparing laparoscopic and open herniorraphy is contraversial. Laparoscopic surgery has became or is being tried as a standard in most of abdominal surgery due to its advantages. But disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery include the need for general anethesia, a problem particularly in over increasingly aged population, limit its more use. This study aimed to investigate the availability and indication of both laparoscopic and open herniorraphy.
Methods: The records and data of 85 inguinal hernia patients who underwent laparoscopic herniorrhaphy (n=20) or open herniorrhaphy (n=65), with similiar sex and age distribution, were retrospectively analyzed. Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy equated to totallly extraperitoneal approach (TEP) repair and open herniorrhaphy to Bassini repair and Lichtenstein repair. As statistical method, the one way Anova Tests and Post Hoc Tests was used.
Results: There was no significant difference noted between the groups in relation to sex, age, site, complication rate, or recurrence rate in both group. The laparoscopic group has a shorter mean postoperative hospital day than open group. However there was no statistical significance. Postoperative analgesic administration is significantly decreased in mesh applied group.
Conclusion: The advantages of laparoscopic herniorrhaphy is not revealed in all patients. Indications for laparoscopic herniorrhaphy are being restricted to recurrent, bilateral hernia. Patient selection has been stepped up. Thus elderly patients and patients with significant morbidity who may well require monitoring after procedure are being advised to undergo open tension free repair with local anethesia. These recommendation apply similarly young patients with small, simple primary defects. After studying more cases, a reevaluation must be done concerning the advantage of both laparoscopic and open herniorraphy. (J Korean Surg Soc 2005;69:166-171)
|