Slit versus non-slit mesh placement in total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the present research was to study patients who underwent laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair using slit and non-slit mesh placement. METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in our hospital between 2005 and 2009 were interviewed and examined. Surgery outcome, hernia recurrence, postoperative pain and time to return to normal physical activities, and surgery satisfaction were compared. RESULTS: During the study period 389 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic groin hernia repair: 387 by the total extraperitoneal (TEP) approach and 2 by the TAPP approach. Six of the TEP patients were converted to TAPP. Eighty-seven patients in the TEP group had slit mesh placement and 300 had non-slit mesh placement. Mean follow-up was 36 months (range: 6-66 months). At follow-up, 387 patients responded to a request for interview and 277 were examined. The overall recurrence rate was 4.7%, the incidence of constant postoperative pain was 1.3%, the presence of permanent testicular pain was 2.8%, and patient satisfaction with the surgery was 94.5%. A significantly lower recurrence rate was found in the slit mesh group than in the non-slit group (0.6% versus 5.9%; p < 0.003). There was no difference in the length of time until return to normal activities, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain between the groups. Surgery time and the occurrence of testicular pain were significantly greater in the anatomic group. CONCLUSIONS: Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with slit mesh placement is a safe technique with a very low recurrence rate and is superior to non-slit mesh positioning.

EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Under the mandate of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) a guideline on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery has been developed. The primary focus of this guideline is patient safety, efficacy, and effectiveness. METHODS: An international expert panel was invited to develop recommendations for the assessment and introduction of surgical innovations. A consensus development conference (CDC) took place in May 2009 using the method of a nominal group process (NGP). The recommendations were presented at the annual EAES congress in Prague, Czech Republic, on June 18th, 2009 for discussion and further input. After further Delphi processes between the experts, the final recommendations were agreed upon. RESULTS: The development and implementation of innovations in surgery are addressed in five sections: (1) definition of an innovation, (2) preclinical and (3) clinical scientific development, (4) scientific approval, and (5) implementation along with monitoring. Within the present guideline each of the sections and several steps are defined, and several recommendations based on available evidence have been agreed within each category. A comprehensive workflow of the different steps is given in an algorithm. In addition, issues of health technology assessment (HTA) serving to estimate efficiency followed by ethical directives are given. CONCLUSIONS: Innovations into clinical practice should be introduced with the highest possible grade of safety for the patient (nil nocere: do no harm). The recommendations can contribute to the attainment of this objective without preventing future promising diagnostic and therapeutic innovations in the field of surgery and allied techniques.