Robotic-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair after previous transabdominal prostatectomy

• Published in: Surgical endoscopy Vol. 36; no. 3; pp. 2105 - 2112
• Main Authors: Dewulf, M., Aspeslagh, L., Nachtergaele, F., Pletinckx, P., Muysoms, F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01-03-2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Catheters; Dissection; Endoscopy; Gastroenterology; Gynecology; Hepatology; Hernia, Inguinal - etiology; Hernia, Inguinal - surgery; Hernias; Herniorrhaphy - methods; Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - adverse effects; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Patients; Polyesters; Proctology; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy - adverse effects; Prostatectomy - methods; Retrospective Studies; Robotic surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; Surgery; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome; Urinary tract diseases; Urinary tract infections; Urogenital system; Urological surgery; Prostatectomy; Groin hernia; Inguinal hernia; Robotic-assisted surgery
• ISSN: 0930-2794; 1432-2218
• DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08497-9

Background
Transabdominal prostatectomy results in scarring of the retropubic space and this might complicate subsequent preperitoneal dissection and mesh placement during minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. Therefore, it suggested that an open anterior technique should be used rather than a minimally invasive posterior technique in these patients.
Methods
In this single-center study, a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. All patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair after previous transabdominal prostatectomy were included in this analysis, and the feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair were compared.
Results
From 907 inguinal hernia operations performed between March 2015 and March 2020, 45 patients met the inclusion criteria. As the number of patients treated with conventional laparoscopy was very low (
n
 = 2), their data were excluded from statistical analysis. An open anterior repair with mesh (Lichtenstein) was performed in 21 patients and a robotic-assisted laparoscopic posterior transabdominal repair (rTAPP) in 22. Patient characteristics between groups were comparable. A transurethral urinary catheter was placed during surgery in 17 patients, most often in the laparoscopic cases (15/22, 68.2%). In the rTAPP group, a higher proportion of patients was treated for a bilateral inguinal hernia (50%, vs 19% in the Lichtenstein group). There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions from laparoscopy to open surgery. No statistically significant differences between both groups were observed in the outcome parameters. At 4 weeks follow-up, more patients who underwent rTAPP had an asymptomatic seroma (22.7% vs 5% in the Lichtenstein group) and two patients were treated postoperatively for a urinary tract infection (4.7%).
Conclusion
A robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach to inguinal hernia after previous transabdominal prostatectomy seems safe and feasible and might offer specific advantages in the treatment of bilateral inguinal hernia repairs.