An observational study in Hernia, Direct Inguinal Hernia and Seroma Following Procedure, sponsored by B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences. Completed at 1 site in Nepal. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-08-13.
Sponsored by B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences · Observational
The defect closure was found to have higher pain and less seroma formation at various intervals of time following TEP for moderate-large direct inguinal hernia. Although these findings were statistically insignificant, they may be clinically significant, and further studies with a larger sample size are suggested.
Inguinal hernia is a common and widespread condition from which millions of people suffer. Repair of an inguinal hernia is one of the most frequently performed operations in general surgery. Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair are the principal techniques in laparoscopic hernia repair. Laparoscopic hernia repair is recommended for bilateral and recurrent inguinal hernias. It has also been recommended for patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia, contingent on the availability of surgical expertise and resources, due to a lower incidence of post-operative pain and chronic pain.
Seroma formation is a frequent complication of laparoscopic mesh repair of moderate-large direct inguinal hernia defects. While rates of seroma formation have been reported to be as high as 10-30%. Several attempts have been made to reduce the incidence of seroma formation, such as tacking the transversalis fascia (TF) to the ramus of the pubis, closing the direct inguinal hernia defect via the endoloop technique, and filling the potential dead space with fibrin glue. However, there is a potential increase in the risk of infection and also a risk of chronic pubic bone pain from the tack staples or vasculo-nervous injury if fixing the TF to the abdominal wall, which would lead to extra discomfort for the patient. The closure of a direct hernia defect with a barbed suture not only closes the defect superficially but also exterminates the defect cavity; consequently, the incidence of seroma formation has been greatly reduced.
However, there is still controversial evidence regarding the choice of the two procedures in terms of reducing the rate of seroma formation and pain. Thus, it is ambiguous which surgical technique should be considered best to repair an inguinal hernia. In this study, we tried to evaluate the technical aspect of direct defect closure in laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair and its effect on the primary outcomes in terms of seroma formation and pain at different time intervals, along with the secondary outcomes such as operative time, length of postoperative hospital stay, days to resume normal activities, recurrence, and intraoperative complications like injury to the vas, vessel, and visceral injury or peritoneal tear.
Patients with inguinal hernia presenting to surgery OPD
Exclusion Criteria:
the fascia transversalis (pseudo sac) was pulled and incorporated into closure with a non-absorbable polypropylene barbed monofilament size-0 suture
Other: closed the defect with barbed suture
defect was left open
In direct hernia, content was reduced, and the fascia transversalis (pseudo sac) was pulled and incorporated into closure with a non-absorbable polypropylene barbed monofilament size-0 suture
seroma formation in defect closure group
After closing the defect, there is less seroma formation than in the defect non closure group
Time frame: till 6 months
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences