• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

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
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • 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
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows 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
  • Search
    • Search the SAGES Site
    • Guidelines Search
    • Video Search
    • Search Images
    • Search Abstracts
  • OWLS/FLS
  • Login

A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Laparoscopic Totally Extra Peritoneal (tep) Repair Versus Trans Abdominal Pre-peritoneal (tapp) Repair for Inguinal Hernia Repair

Background
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair has the advantage of lesser pain, early recovery and lesser wound morbidity. There is no consensus on the best groin hernia repair. There are two standard techniques of Laparoscopic Inguinal hernia repair – Total Extra Peritoneal repair (TEP) and Trans – Abdominal Pre-Peritoneal repair (TAPP). There are not many trials available comparing the two techniques and questions remain about their relative merits and risks. The present study was undertaken to compare the two techniques in terms of operative complications and follow up.

Methods
This prospective randomized study was done from 1st May 2007 to 31st December 2009. 100 patients were randomised to either TEP repair (Group1) or TAPP repair (Group 2) by random numbers from www.randomization.com. Only patients with uncomplicated inguinal hernia were included. InTEP repair space creation was done by 30 degree telescope. The mesh was not fixed in both the groups and in TAPP repair peritoneum was closed with 2-0 polydioxone. Both the techniques were compared in terms of intra operative ease of surgery, intra-operative problems, conversions and time taken for surgery. Acute and chronic pain was also compared on visual analogue scale. All patients were followed up for a period of 12 months. The variables were compared using chi – square and unpaired Student’s‘t’ test for qualitative and quantitative parameters as appropriate.Mann Whitney test was used for the comparative data analysis.


Results

100 patients were randomised (Group I – 53 patients and Group II – 47 patients). Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and hernia characteristics. There were no conversions in the study. There was no visceral or vascular injury. Average operating time was longer in TAPP (85min) compared to TEP (70 min) although this was not statistically significant (p=0.209). Seroma formation was more common in TEP (37.25%, p=0.021) whereas TAPP had a higher incidence of scrotal edema (34%, p=0.009). Pain score on VAS was significantly higher in TAPP at 1hour, 24 hour, 1 month and 3 month follow up (p=0.001,0.002,0.001 and 0.001) . However the pain scores were levelled in the two groups at 6, 12 and 18 months follow up(p= 0.231,0.342,0.90). The patient satisfaction was lower in the TAPP group mainly due to the higher pain scores recorded in group II up to 3 months follow – up. The operative time taken by junior consultant was significantly higher than senior consultant (78.6 minutes vs 62.8 minutes, p=0.02). However the difference was not statistically significant for TAPP vs TEP between the consultants (78.6 mintus vs 77.6 minutes, p=0.12).

Conclusions
TEP had significant advantage over TAPP for a significantly reduced postoperative pain up to 3 months which resulted in better patient satisfaction score. There was no significant difference in both the procedures in terms of operative problems or post operative recovery.


Session: Poster

Program Number: P458

View Poster

745

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • 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

Related



  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons