[Where does laparoscopy fit in the treatment of inguinal hernia in 2003?]

Abstract

Meta-analysis of randomized studies has clearly shown that prosthetic repair of inguinal hernias decreases the risk of hernia recurrence when compared with herniorraphy without prosthesis; but the optimal route for insertion of the prosthetic patch (laparoscopic versus open inguinal approach) remains in dispute. Meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing laparoscopic with open prosthetic hernia repair suggest that laparoscopy is associated with less post-operative pain (both early and late), a quicker recovery, and earlier return to work. Yet this is at the price of longer operative time and an incidence of rare but potentially severe complications. On the basis of these randomized studies, the ANAES in France and the NICE in England have put forth recommendations which accept the indication for laparoscopic repair in recurrent and bilateral hernias, if done by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic technique. For unilateral hernia in adults, laparoscopic repair has shown no proof of superiority over open prosthetic repair in terms of mortality, morbidity, or recurrence rate. The principal advantage of the laparoscopic approach seems to be improved patient comfort; its disadvantage is higher cost and technical difficulty with a prolonged learning curve. The excess costs of the laparoscopic approach may be compensated by an earlier return to work. At present, the laparoscopic repair of hernias finds its clinical niche in patients with bilateral or recurrent hernias or in patients with unilateral hernia who desire a minimal period of postoperative disability.