• 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 / Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair Versus Open Hernia Repair: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair Versus Open Hernia Repair: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

Introduction
Lichtenstein repair is generally accepted as a safe and widely practiced. Laparoscopic TEP herniorrhaphy is a recent technique and now increasing in number, but not generally accepted because of technical difficulties and not established peri-operative outcomes. This study compares perioperative outcomes and complications between open Lichtenstein repair and laparoscopic TEP repair.
Methods
This study is retrospective study and from January to August, 2008, total 43 cases(22 cases of TEP method, 21 cases of Lichitenstein repair) were enrolled in this study. All cases were operated by same surgeon. Operative time, hospital stay, analgesic uses, post-operative hematoma, recurrence, groin pain, were compared.
Results
The mean operative time was 78 ¡¾ 20 minutes(min) in the TEP group and 72 ¡¾ 13 min in the Lichtenstein group and there was no statistical difference (p=0.223). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TEP group (4.5 ¡¾ 0.7 days) than in the Lichtenstein group (5.2 ¡¾ 0.8 days) (p=0.015). Total analgesic uses is comparative in both groups(1.2 ¡¾ 1.1 times in the TEP group and 1.8 ¡¾ 1.7 times in the Lichtenstein group). But, if result was stratified into two groups(within 24 hours and after 24 hours), analgesic uses is significantly frequent in the Lichtenstein group(0.3 ¡¾ 0.5 times) than in the TEP group(0.7 ¡¾ 0.8 times) after 24 hours (p=0.038). There was no recurrence in the both groups. Hematoma was more frequent in the TEP group (36%) than in the Lichtenstein group (9.5%) (p=0.037). But except for 2 cases of sono-guided aspiration in the TEP group, all hematoma patients were self regressed about after 2 months. Groin pain was comparative in the both group.
Conclusion
In the TEP group, hospital stay is significantly shorter than in the Lichtenstein group and this is maybe because less post-operative pain after 24 hours from the operation. There was no difference in the operative time in the both groups and hematoma was more frequent in the TEP group than in the Lichtenstein group. Laparoscopic TEP herniorrhaphy may be performed efficiently with an acceptable operating time and shorter hospital stay.


Session: Poster

Program Number: P461

View Poster

100


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons