Krishna Asuri, MS, Bansal Virinder, MS, Misra Mahesh, MS. all india institute of medical sciences
Introduction: TEP and TAPP are the two standard techniques for laparoscopic repair of groin hernia. There have been many studies comparing TEP vs TAPP in terms of safety and efficacy, however there are conflicting reports of advantages of one over the other. The recent guidelines for laparoscopic groin hernia repair published by International Endo Hernia society (IEHS) also could not answer the question of which of the two techniques is better . We present our experience of more than 1000 TEP and TAPP cases.
Methodology: This study is retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database of all patients with groin hernia underwent laparoscopic groin hernia repair in a single surgical unit between January 2004 and July 2016.Patient’s demographic profile, hernia characteristics (duration, side, extent, content, reducibility) were noted in the pre-structured proforma. A written informed consent was taken from all patients before surgery. Clinical outcomes included the operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, hernia recurrence, chronic pain (defined as pain that persisted for more than 3 months),recurrence,seroma and wound infections. Patients were followed up in the outpatient clinic by the attending surgeons during the postoperative course.
Results: Over ten years duration, TEP repair was performed in 841 patients and TAPP on 542. Mean age of patients was 50.7 years (range 17-86 years). Both the techniques were comparable in terms of operative time, intraoperative complications and post operative outcomes. However there was a significantly higher pain scores (p value <0.05) at 24 hours in the TAPP group. The incidence of seroma was higher in TEP and scrotal edema was more common after TAPP repair. Both the techniques were also comparable in terms of QoL, testicular function and sexual functions
Conclusion: In conclusions both TEP and TAPP repair are comparable and should be considered as complementary procedures.
Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.
Abstract ID: 79252
Program Number: P058
Presentation Session: Poster (Non CME)
Presentation Type: Poster
