• 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
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Apples to Apples: A Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair

Apples to Apples: A Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair

Maria Abou Khalil, Shannon Fraser, MD, MSc, FRCSC, FACS

Department of Surgery, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

INTRODUCTION- Surgical repair of inguinal hernias include a myriad of techniques that have been extensively studied in the literature. This study compares two surgical methods that approach primary inguinal hernias from the preperitoneal space: an open preperitoneal mesh repair (Open) and a laparoscopic (TEP) repair with respect to complications, recurrences and the learning curve of each technique.

METHODS- Using a prospective database we analyzed data for preperitoneal open and TEP unilateral or bilateral non-recurrent inguinal hernia repairs performed between November 2005 and August 2012, by a single surgeon. 271 patients were included in the Open group and 69 in the TEP group. Collected variables included age, sex, operative time, type of hernia, time to follow up, complications and recurrence. A Cumulative Summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to evaluate learning curves for each technique.

RESULTS- The complication rate was higher in the laparoscopic group (18.84% vs. 7% [p=0.0055]), with the TEP group suffering a greater number of urinary tract complications (TEP 7.25% vs Open 0.36% p=0.0008); however patients in both groups had similar chronic pain occurrences (1.85% Open vs. 1.45% TEP [p=0.7745]). Both groups had similar recurrence rates (TEP 6.25% vs. Open 4.78% [p=0.7080]) (Table 1). Our CUSUM analysis for the TEP group shows that the recurrence rate starts to consistently improve and reaches acceptable failure rates after the 18th procedure. In the open repair group, the recurrence rate shows a consistent improvement from the beginning of the learning curve (Figure 1).

CONCLUSION- TEP and open preperitoneal repairs are similar in terms of recurrence rate and incidence of chronic pain for primary inguinal hernias. Although TEP repair may facilitate a faster postoperative recovery, it has a steeper learning curve, higher complication rate and its access may be limited by its cost and equipment. Thus, open preperitoneal repair should be considered for primary herniorrhaphy with low chronic pain rates, low recurrence rates and a more easily mastered and accessible technique than TEP.

Table 1

Open TEP P
Patients 271 69 –
Mean Age (years) 54.5±16.7 54.9±13.2 0.82
Male (%) 91.1 92.7 0.85
Complication Rate (%) 7 18.84 0.0055
Urinary tract complications (%) 0.36 7.25 0.0008
Chronic Pain (%) 1.85 1.45 0.7745
Recurrence Rate (%) 4.78 6.25 0.7080
Mean Follow Up (days) 148.1±319.3 98.6±144.5 0.2175

Figure 1


Session: Poster Presentation

Program Number: P289

18,554


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons