Background Evidence in the literature regarding the potential of single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) inguinal herniorrhaphy currently is limited. A retrospective comparison of SILS and traditional multiport laparoscopic (MP) inguinal hernia repair was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of the minimally invasive laparoscopic technique. Methods All laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs performed by three surgeons at a single institution during 4 years were reviewed. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and hernia location (uni- or bilateral), in addition to bivariate and multivariate analyses of surgical technique and outcomes including operative times, conversions, and complications. Results The study compared 129 patients who underwent SILS inguinal hernia repair and 76 patients who underwent MP inguinal hernia repair. The cases included 190 men (92.68 %) with a mean age of 55.36 ± 18.01 years (range, 8-86 years) and a mean BMI of 26.49 ± 4.33 kg/m2 (range, 17.3-41.7 kg/m2). These variables did not differ significantly between the SILS and MP cohorts. The average operative times for the SILS and MP unilateral cases were respectively 57.51 and 66.96 min. For the bilateral cases, the average operative times were 81.07 min for SILS and 81.38 min for MP. A multivariate analysis using surgical approach, BMI, case complexity, and laterality as the covariates demonstrated noninferiority of the SILS technique in terms of operative time (p = 0.031). No conversions from SILS to MP occurred, and the rates of conversion to open procedure did not differ significantly between the cohorts (p = 1.00, Fisher's exact test), nor did the complication rates (p = 0.65, χ2). Conclusions As shown by the findings, SILS inguinal herniorrhaphy is a safe and feasible alternative to traditional MP inguinal hernia repair and can be performed successfully with similar operative times, conversion rates, and complication rates. Prospective trials are essential to confirm equivalence in these areas and to detect differences in patient-centered outcomes.
- Clinical papers
ASJC Scopus subject areas