• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / A Comparison of Outcomes for Single-incision Laparoscopic and Traditional 3-port Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniorrhaphy at a Single Institution

A Comparison of Outcomes for Single-incision Laparoscopic and Traditional 3-port Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniorrhaphy at a Single Institution

Sharon Monsivais, BA, Hannah Vassaur, MS, PAC, Nicole E Sharp, MD, John Eckford, MD, Rob Watson, MD, Daniel Jupiter, PhD, F. Paul Buckley III, MD

Division of General Surgery, Scott and White Healthcare

Purpose: A retrospective chart review comparing single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) inguinal hernia repair and traditional 3-port laparoscopic (LAP) inguinal hernia repair was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of the minimally invasive laparoscopic technique.

Methods: All SILS and LAP inguinal hernia repairs performed by three surgeons at a single institution between August 1, 2008 and July 30, 2012 were reviewed. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographic data including age, gender, BMI, and hernia location (unilateral or bilateral) in addition to bivariate analyses of operative outcomes including operative times, conversions to open, case complexity and complications.

Results: 129 patients who underwent SILS inguinal hernia repair and 76 who underwent LAP inguinal hernia repair were compared. Cases included 92.68% men with a mean age of 55.36 (range 8-86) and a mean BMI of 26.49 (range 17.3-41.7); there were no significant differences in these variables between SILS and LAP cases. A one sided t-test for superiority indicated that average operative time for SILS unilateral cases was statistically significantly shorter than for LAP unilateral cases (57.51 versus 66.96 minutes; p=0.043). For bilateral cases, average operative time for SILS and LAP were similar (81.07 versus 81.38 minutes), but a t-test for non-inferiority, with a non-inferiority margin of five minutes, was not statistically significant (p-value=0.18). In a linear model for operative time including the covariates surgery type, BMI, case complexity, and hernia location, an increase of 1 kg/m2 in BMI increased operative time by 1.33 minutes on average, which was statistically significant. Bilateral cases also took an average of 21.5 minutes longer than unilateral cases, also significant. The presence of an incarcerated or recurrent hernia also proved to be a significant factor, showing an average increase in operative length of 9.23 minutes. Using this model, a test for non-inferiority showed that the SILS technique took no more than five minutes longer than the LAP technique (p-value=0.031). There were no conversions from SILS to multiport technique, but five (3.88%) SILS and three (3.95%) LAP cases were converted to either Kugel or Lichtenstein repairs; this was not a significant difference in conversion rate (Fisher exact p-value 1). Additionally, there was no significant difference in complication rates between SILS and LAP (chi-squared p-value 0.65).

Conclusion: SILS inguinal hernia repair is both a safe and feasible alternative to traditional LAP inguinal hernia repair and can be successfully conducted with similar operative times, conversion rates and complication rates. This comparative study will serve as a starting point for prospective trials, which are essential to confirming equivalence in these areas as well as revealing differences in patient satisfaction with post-operative pain, cosmesis, and quality of life.


Session: Podium Presentation

Program Number: S017

126

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals