TY - JOUR
T1 - Postoperative outcomes using Lichtenstein open hernioplasty versus Nyhus preperitoneal hernioplasty in inguinal hernia
T2 - A comparative analysis with 1-year follow-up
AU - Cabrera-Vargas, Luis F.
AU - Mendoza-Zuchini, Andrés
AU - Aparicio, Brandon S.
AU - Pedraza, Mauricio
AU - Sajona-Leguia, Walter A.
AU - Arias, Jhoan S.R.
AU - Lozada-Martinez, Ivan D.
AU - Picón-Jaimes, Yelson A.
AU - Narvaez-Rojas, Alexis R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - Background and Aim: Inguinal hernia is the most common defect of the abdominal wall in 75% and their treatment consists of surgical repair. The technique of choice is laparoscopic because of its overall benefits. However, when this is not available, open approaches may be a viable option. Currently, the most commonly used open techniques are Lichtenstein and Nyhus. However, there are few medium- or long-term studies that have compared outcomes between these two techniques. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study that included patients undergoing open inguinal hernia correction with mesh, using Lichtenstein open hernioplasty versus Nyhus preperitoneal hernioplasty, in two tertiary referral centers in Bogota, Colombia, during a period of 2 years. A bivariate analysis was performed to compare groups, according to the complications presented between the two techniques. Results: A total of 193 patients were included, of whom 53.36% were men and 112 (58.03%) were approached with the Nyhus technique versus 81 patients with the Lichtenstein technique. Nonabsorbable suture fixation was performed in 100% of patients. Among the main complications, seroma (5.18%), pain (4.14%), bleeding (2.07%), recurrence (10.88%), and reoperation (0.51%) were observed, of which only recurrence showed a statistically significant difference, which is lower in the Nyhus approach (3.57% vs. 20.67%; p < 0.001). No patients died. Conclusions: Both Nyhus and Lichtenstein hernioplasty techniques were shown to cause a low incidence of postoperative complications, with significantly lower recurrence using the Nyhus technique up to 1 year postoperatively.
AB - Background and Aim: Inguinal hernia is the most common defect of the abdominal wall in 75% and their treatment consists of surgical repair. The technique of choice is laparoscopic because of its overall benefits. However, when this is not available, open approaches may be a viable option. Currently, the most commonly used open techniques are Lichtenstein and Nyhus. However, there are few medium- or long-term studies that have compared outcomes between these two techniques. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study that included patients undergoing open inguinal hernia correction with mesh, using Lichtenstein open hernioplasty versus Nyhus preperitoneal hernioplasty, in two tertiary referral centers in Bogota, Colombia, during a period of 2 years. A bivariate analysis was performed to compare groups, according to the complications presented between the two techniques. Results: A total of 193 patients were included, of whom 53.36% were men and 112 (58.03%) were approached with the Nyhus technique versus 81 patients with the Lichtenstein technique. Nonabsorbable suture fixation was performed in 100% of patients. Among the main complications, seroma (5.18%), pain (4.14%), bleeding (2.07%), recurrence (10.88%), and reoperation (0.51%) were observed, of which only recurrence showed a statistically significant difference, which is lower in the Nyhus approach (3.57% vs. 20.67%; p < 0.001). No patients died. Conclusions: Both Nyhus and Lichtenstein hernioplasty techniques were shown to cause a low incidence of postoperative complications, with significantly lower recurrence using the Nyhus technique up to 1 year postoperatively.
KW - Colombia
KW - herniorrhaphy
KW - inguinal hernia
KW - mortality
KW - open surgery
KW - postoperative complications
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151094351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/hsr2.1151
DO - 10.1002/hsr2.1151
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85151094351
SN - 2398-8835
VL - 6
JO - Health Science Reports
JF - Health Science Reports
IS - 3
M1 - e1151
ER -