pp 1–5 | Cite as

Effect of direct defect closure during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (“TEP/TAPP plus” technique) on post-operative outcomes

  • F. UsmaniEmail author
  • S. Wijerathne
  • S. Malik
  • C. Yeo
  • J. Rao
  • D. Lomanto
Original Article



Seroma formation and recurrence in large inguinal hernia still remain an important clinical complication despite decades since the advent of mesh repair.


In our prospective comparative analysis, we want to evaluate the effect of direct hernia defect closure on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in two tertiary care institutions in Singapore. The direct hernia defects were closed with non-absorbable sutures incorporating the pseudosac.


A group of 241 patients underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair for a total of 378 direct defects from April 2014 to July 2018. Of these patients, 98 (40.6%) patients underwent hernia repair without closure of their direct defect while 143 (59.4%) patients underwent direct defect closure. No significant differences were observed between the two patient populations’ demographic information and the mean operative time. A total of 219 direct defects were closed and 159 direct defects were not repaired. Compared to the group that did not undergo direct defect closure, the group that had closure of the direct defects demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in recurrence (4.4% versus 0.9%, p = 0.036) and seroma formation (12.6% versus 6.4%, p = 0.045).


Direct defect closure has proven to be effective in reducing recurrence and seroma formation post-operatively in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Randomized controlled trials will be required to further evaluate these outcomes.


Inguinal hernia Direct defect Defect closure Hernia repair 



Dr Sze Wai Leong: Department of General Surgery, National University Health System, Singapore, 2Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

Anonymous data were taken from a prospectively collected standing database and no special ethics approval was needed as no identifiable patient data was used.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments and comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

All patients involved in this study have signed the institution specific informed consent forms and are aware of the possible risks and benefits of the surgery.


  1. 1.
    Group, HerniaSurge (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22(1):1–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dedemadi G, Sgourakis G, Radtke A, Dounavis A et al (2010) Laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Am J Surg 200(2):291–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eklund AS, Montgomery AK, Rasmussen IC et al (2009) Low recurrence rate after laparoscopic (TEP) and open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair: a randomized, multicenter trial with 5-year follow-up. Ann Surg 249(1):33–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matthews RD, Anthony T, Kim LT, Wang J et al (2007) Factors associated with postoperative complications and hernia recurrence for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair: a report from the VA Cooperative Hernia Study Group. Am J Surg 194(5):611–617. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burcharth J (2014) The epidemiology and risk factors for recurrence after inguinal hernia surgery. Dan Med J 61(5):B4846Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bittner R, Sauerland S, Schmedt CG (2005) Comparison of endoscopic techniques vs Shouldice and other open nonmesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19(5):605–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Adolf D et al (2018) Seroma following transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty (TAPP): incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures. Surg Endosc 32(5):2222–2231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouras G, Burns EM, Howell AM et al (2017) Linked hospital and primary care database analysis of the impact of short-term complications on recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 21(2):191–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schjøth-Iversen L, Refsum A, Brudvik KW (2017) Factors associated with hernia recurrence after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia: a 2-year prospective cohort study. Hernia 21(5):729–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siddaiah-Subramanya M, Ashrafi D, Memon B, Memon MA (2018) Causes of recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 22(6):975–986. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R (2005) Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19(2):188–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berney CR (2012) The Endoloop technique for the primary closure of direct inguinal hernia defect during the endoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach. Hernia 16(3):301–305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clout E, Thayaparan M, Douglas C, Berney CR (2018) Long-term follow-up of endoscopic totally extraperitoneal direct inguinal hernia repair using the Endoloop technique. Surg Endosc. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daes J (2014) Endoscopic repair of large inguinoscrotal hernias: management of the distal sac to avoid seroma formation. Hernia 18(1):119–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee SR, Park SS (2018) The novel technique of transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty herniorrhaphy for direct inguinal hernia: suture repair of hernia defect wall. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(1):83–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li J, Zhang W (2018) Closure of a direct inguinal hernia defect in laparoscopic repair with barbed suture: a simple method to prevent seroma formation? Surg Endosc 32(2):1082–1086. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhu Y, Liu M, Li J, Wang M (2019) Closure of direct inguinal hernia defect in laparoscopic hernioplasty to prevent seroma formation: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 29(1):18–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reddy VM, Sutton CD, Bloxham L, Garcea G, Ubhi SS, Robertson GS (2007) Laparoscopic repair of direct inguinal hernia: a new technique that reduces the development of postoperative seroma. Hernia 11(5):393–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sürgit Ö, Çavuşoğlu NT, Kılıç M, Ünal Y, Koşar PN et al (2016) Use of fibrin glue in preventing pseudorecurrence after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of large indirect inguinal hernia. Ann Surg Treat Res 91(3):127–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jehaes C, Schumpelick V, Wantz GE et al (1995) Laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach for inguinal hernia repair. In: Schumpelick V, Wantz GE (eds) Inguinal hernia repair, illustrated edn. Karger, Basel, pp 169–172Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E et al (2015) Update of guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia (International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc 29(2):289–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li J, Gong W, Liu Q (2019) Intraoperative adjunctive techniques to reduce seroma formation in laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty: a systematic review. Hernia. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryNational University Health SystemSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryTan Tock Seng HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of MedicineNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations