Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 2222–2231 | Cite as

Seroma following transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty (TAPP): incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures

  • F. Köckerling
  • R. Bittner
  • D. Adolf
  • R. Fortelny
  • H. Niebuhr
  • F. Mayer
  • C. Schug-Pass
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Background

The reported range of seroma formation in the literature after TEP repair is between 0.5 and 12.2% and for TAPP between 3.0 and 8.0%. Significant clinical factors associated with seroma formation include old age, a large hernia defect, an extension of the hernia sac into the scrotum, as well as the presence of a residual indirect sac. Seroma formation is a frequent complication of laparoendoscopic mesh repair of moderate to large-size direct (medial) inguinal hernia defects. This present analysis of data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry now explores the influencing factors for seroma formation in male patients after TAPP repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia.

Methods

In total, 20,004 male patients with TAPP repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia were included in uni- and multivariable analysis.

Results

Univariable analysis revealed the highly significant impact of the fixation technique on the seroma rate (non-fixation 0.7% vs. tacks 2.1% vs. glue 3.9%; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that glue compared to tacks (OR 2.077 [1.650; 2.613]; p < 0.001) and non-fixation (OR 5.448 [4.056; 7.317]; p < 0.001) led to an increased seroma rate. A large hernia defect (III vs. I: OR 2.868 [1.815; 4.531]; p < 0.001; II vs. I: OR 2.157 [1.410; 3.300]; p < 0.001) presented a significantly higher risk of seroma formation. Likewise, medial compared to lateral inguinal hernias had a higher seroma rate (OR 1.272 [1.020; 1.585]; p = 0.032).

Conclusions

Mesh fixation with tacks or glue, a larger hernia defect, and medial defect localization present a higher risk for seroma development in TAPP inguinal hernia repair.

Keywords

Inguinal hernia TAPP Seroma Complications Mesh fixation 

According to the Guidelines of the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) and the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) [1, 2, 3], seroma formation is a frequent occurrence after laparoendoscopic groin hernia repair but lacks clinical relevance or significance in most cases. It is advised to explain the possibility of seroma formation to the patient before surgery to prevent anxiety [3]. The main problem with postoperative seroma is the perception by patients and their general practitioners that they represent a persistence or recurrence of the hernia [4]. There are reports of seroma being mistaken for recurrences following laparoscopic hernia repair, with the correct diagnosis being made only after groin exploration [4].

The reported range of seroma formation in literature reviews after TEP repair is between 0.5 and 12.2% [5] and for TAPP between 3.0 and 8.0% [4]. In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, a significantly higher incidence of seromas was found after laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair, with 1590 patients, versus Lichtenstein repair, with 1620 patients (12.2 vs. 8.9%; p = 0.003) [6]. If no measures are taken for prevention of seroma after TEP or TAPP repair for direct inguinal hernia, the incidence reported is 4–5% [7]. In large registry studies of primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair in men with the laparoendoscopic technique, the incidence of seroma has been reported as 0.5% for TEP and 3% for TAPP [8, 9]. Significant clinical factors associated with seroma formation include old age, a large hernia defect, an extension of the hernia sac into the scrotum, and the presence of a residual distal indirect sac [10, 11]. Seroma formation is a frequent complication of laparoendoscopic mesh repair of moderate to large size direct medial inguinal hernia defects [5].

While certain studies had identified significantly less seroma formation on using extra lightweight meshes [12], a meta-analysis did not note any difference in the impact of lightweight vs heavyweight meshes on the seroma rate after laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair [13]. Likewise, while in one observational study comparison of mesh fixation versus non-fixation for endoscopic inguinal hernia repair revealed a lower seroma rate for non-fixation [14], this was not demonstrated by a corresponding meta-analysis [15]. Besides, comparison of mesh fixation with tacks versus glue did not show any significant difference in the seroma rate [16, 17, 18]. In two observational studies, preperitoneal drainage was found to have a positive effect on the seroma incidence [19, 20].

This present analysis of data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry now explores the influencing factors for seroma formation after TAPP repair. Preventative measures will then be discussed.

Materials and methods

As of October 10, 2016, 577 participating hospitals and office-based surgeons mainly from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have entered prospective data into the multicenter internet-based Herniamed Hernia Registry on their patients who had undergone routine hernia surgery and signed an informed consent agreeing to participate [21]. As part of the information provided to patients regarding participation in the Herniamed Quality Assurance Study and signing the informed consent declaration, all patients are informed that the treating hospital or medical practice would like to be informed about any problems occurring after the operation and that the patient has the opportunity to attend clinical examination. All postoperative complications occurring up to 30 days after surgery are recorded. This present study analyzed the prospective data collected for all male patients who had been operated on with a TAPP technique for repair of a primary unilateral inguinal hernia in the period September 1, 2009, up to and including September 1, 2015. At 1-year follow-up, the general practitioners and patients were asked once again for any postoperative complication. If complications are reported by the general practitioner or patient, patients can be requested to attend clinical and/or radiological examinations. A recent publication has provided impressive evidence of the role of patient-reported outcomes [22]. Only those patients for whom 1-year follow-up results were available were included in the analysis. Other inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 16 years and only medial/lateral/combined types of inguinal hernia based on the EHS classification [23]. In total, 20,004 patients were included in uni- and multivariable analysis (Fig. 1) for investigation of influencing factors for the development of a seroma after TAPP inguinal hernia repair. During the observation period, the 20,004 TAPP procedures were performed in 8799 patients (44.0%) without mesh fixation, in 6387 patients (31.9%) using tacks for fixation, and in 4818 patients with glue fixation (24.1%).

Fig. 1

Flowchart of patient inclusion

The most commonly used meshes (≥ 2%) are given in Table 1. These were mainly large-pore lightweight meshes. The most commonly used (≥ 2%) tacks and glues are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1

Proportion of meshes most commonly used (≥ 2%)

Type of mesh

Type of fixation

Total

Non-fixation

Tacks

Glues

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Prolene

12

0.1

447

7.0

6

0.1

465

2.3

Ultrapro

1139

12.9

1770

27.7

2112

43.8

5021

25.1

Parietene standard

297

3.4

240

3.8

10

0.2

547

2.7

Parietex ProGrip

1017

11.6

11

0.2

8

0.2

1036

5.2

Parietene ProGrip

1332

15.1

29

0.5

1

0.0

1362

6.8

Parietene light

468

5.3

414

6.5

70

1.5

952

4.8

DynaMesh-ENDOLAP

219

2.5

366

5.7

409

8.5

994

5.0

TiMesh extralight

260

3.0

85

1.3

383

7.9

728

3.6

TiMesh light

646

7.3

569

8.9

222

4.6

1437

7.2

3DMax light

1007

11.4

398

6.2

146

3.0

1551

7.8

Optilene

129

1.5

226

3.5

208

4.3

563

2.8

Optilene LP

326

3.7

651

10.2

733

15.2

1710

8.5

TiO2Mesh

460

5.2

86

1.3

115

2.4

661

3.3

Other meshes

1487

16.9

1095

17.1

395

8.2

2977

14.9

Total

8799

100.0

6387

100.0

4818

100.0

20,004

100.0

Table 2

Proportion of tacks most commonly used (≥ 2%)

Type of tacks

N

%

ProTack

348

5.4

Endo universal

531

8.3

AbsorbaTack

2845

44.5

PermaSorb

318

5.0

EMS stapler

1299

20.3

SorbaFix

568

8.9

SecureStrap

328

5.1

Others

150

2.3

Total

6387

100.0

Table 3

Proportion of glue most commonly used (≥ 2%)

Type of glue

N

%

Tissucol/tisseel

2050

42.5

Glubran 2

652

13.5

Evicel

1607

33.4

Liquiband FIX8

161

3.3

Others

348

7.2

Total

4818

100.0

All analyses were performed with the software SAS 9.4 (SAS institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA) and intentionally calculated to a full significance level of 5%, i.e., they were not corrected in respect of multiple tests, and each p value 0.05 represents a significant result. To first discern the differences between the groups in unadjusted analyses. Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical outcome variables, and the robust t test (Satterthwaite) for continuous variables. For mesh size (cm2), a logarithmic transformation was applied and re-transformed mean and range of dispersion are given.

To identify influence factors in multivariable analysis of seroma, a binary logistic regression model was used. Potential influence factors were: ASA score (I/II/III/IV), age (years), BMI (kg/m2), mesh size (cm2), defect size (I/II/III), risk factors (yes/no), preoperative pain (yes/no/unknown), EHS classification (lateral/medial/combined), drainage (yes/no), and mesh fixation (non-fixation/tacks/glue). Estimates for odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval based on the Wald test were given. For influence variables with more than two categories, pairwise odds ratios were given. For age (years), the 10-year OR estimate, for BMI (kg/m2) the five-point OR estimate, and for mesh size (cm2) the 10-point OR estimate were given. Results are presented in tabular form, sorted by descending impact.

Results

Univariable analysis

Univariable analysis of the relationship between the fixation technique (non-fixation/tacks/glue) and the patient and operative characteristics revealed highly significant differences (Tables 4, 5). For example, the proportion of patients with tacks or glue fixation for large hernia defects (EHS III > 3 cm) was significantly greater than that with non-fixation (Table 5). Likewise, the proportion of medial EHS classifications was higher in the tacks and glue mesh fixation group than in the no mesh fixation group. Drain placement was more common in cases of no mesh fixation (Table 5). With regard to mesh fixation (non-fixation/tacks/glue), highly significant differences were seen in the overall postoperative complication rate (non-fixation 1.8% vs. tacks 3.0% vs. glue 4.8%; p < 0.001) (Table 6). Seroma accounted for the greatest proportion of postoperative complications (non-fixation 0.7% vs. tacks 2.1% vs. glue 3.9%); p < 0.001).

Table 4

Mean age, BMI, and mesh size in male patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair in TAPP technique

 

Non-fixation

Tacker

Glue

p

Age (years)

 Median ± STD

55.0 ± 15.6

58.8 ± 14.7

56.4 ± 15.0

< .001

BMI

 Mean ± STD

25.9 ± 3.3

26.0 ± 3.4

25.8 ± 3.4

< .001

Mesh size (cm2)

 Mean (range of dispersion)

146.3 (145.2; 147.5)

149.9 (148.7; 151.1)

151.1 (150.1; 152.2)

< .001

Table 5

Patient and operative characteristics in relation to mesh fixation, including unadjusted tests for significant differences

 

Non-fixation

Tacks

Glue

p

n

%

n

%

n

%

ASA score

 I

3043

34.58

1864

29.18

1946

40.39

< .001

 II

4737

53.84

3621

56.69

2461

51.08

 III/IV

1019

11.58

902

14.12

411

8.53

Defect size

 I (< 1.5 cm)

1533

17.42

727

11.38

683

14.18

< .001

 II (1.5–3 cm)

6072

69.01

3939

61.67

3200

66.42

 III (> 3 cm)

1194

13.57

1721

26.95

935

19.41

EHS classification

 Combined

1128

12.82

633

9.91

394

8.18

< .001

 Lateral

5483

62.31

3718

58.21

3142

65.21

 Medial

2188

24.87

2036

31.88

1282

26.61

Drainage

 Yes

736

8.36

346

5.42

148

3.07

< .001

 No

8063

91.64

6041

94.58

4670

96.93

Risk factorsa

 Total

  Yes

2248

25.55

1665

26.07

1233

25.59

0.747

  No

6551

74.45

4722

73.93

3585

74.41

aCOPD, diabetes, aortic aneurysm, immunosuppression, corticoid medication, smoking, coagulopathy, antiplatelet medication, anticoagulation therapy

Table 6

Outcome variables in relation to mesh fixation, including unadjusted tests for significant differences

 

Non-fixation

Tacks

Glue

p

n

%

n

%

n

%

Postoperative complications

 Total

  Yes

159

1.81

192

3.01

231

4.79

< .001

  No

8640

98.19

6195

96.99

4587

95.21

 Bleeding

  Yes

76

0.86

50

0.78

34

0.71

0.602

  No

8723

99.14

6337

99.22

4784

99.29

 Seroma

  Yes

61

0.69

133

2.08

189

3.92

< .001

  No

8738

99.31

6254

97.92

4629

96.08

 Infection

  Yes

6

0.07

7

0.11

2

0.04

0.407

  No

8793

99.93

6380

99.89

4816

99.96

 Bowel

  Yes

9

0.10

1

0.02

1

0.02

0.041

  No

8790

99.90

6386

99.98

4817

99.98

 Wound healing disorders

  Yes

7

0.08

5

0.08

8

0.17

0.250

  No

8792

99.92

6382

99.92

4810

99.83

 Ileus

  Yes

8

0.09

2

0.03

3

0.06

0.362

  No

8791

99.91

6385

99.97

4815

99.94

Multivariable analysis

The results of multivariable analysis of the postoperative complications associated with seroma are summarized in Table 7 (model fit: p < 0.001). The fixation technique and hernia defect size exerted a highly significant influence on seroma formation (in each case p < 0.001). Glue compared to tacks (OR 2.077 [1.650; 2.613]; p < 0.001) and glue vs non-fixation (OR 5.448 [4.056; 7.317]; p < 0.001) resulted in an increased seroma rate. Similarly, tacks compared to non-fixation (OR 2.623 [1.925; 3.575]; p < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of seroma formation. A large hernia defect (III vs. I: OR 2.868 [1.815; 4.531]; p < 0.001; II vs. I: OR 2.157 [1.410; 3.300]; p < 0.001) presented a significantly higher risk of seroma formation. That was also true for medial compared to lateral inguinal hernia (medial vs. lateral: OR 1.272 [1.020; 1.585]; p = 0.032), and for medial compared to combined (medial vs. combined: OR 2.194 [1.388; 3.470]; p < 0.001). Besides, a high ASA score (ASA III/IV vs. I: OR 1.645 [1.109; 2.442]; p = 0.013) led to an increased risk of seroma formation. The presence of risk factors (yes vs. no: OR 0.703 [0.543; 0.910]; p = 0.008) reduced the risk of seroma development. Only a trend towards a reduction in the risk of seroma formation was identified for the use of a drain (OR 0.584 [0.319; 1.072]; p = 0.083).

Table 7

Multivariable analysis of seroma formation following TAPP inguinal hernia repair

Parameter

p Value

Category

p Value paired

OR estimate

95%-CI

Fixation

< .001

Glue vs. tacks

< .001

2.077

1.650

2.613

Glue vs. non-fixation

< .001

5.448

4.056

7.317

Tacks vs. non-fixation

< .001

2.623

1.925

3.575

Defect size

< .001

III (> 3 cm) vs. II (1.5–3 cm)

0.018

1.330

1.050

1.684

III (> 3 cm) vs. I (< 1.5 cm)

< .001

2.868

1.815

4.531

II (1.5–3 cm) vs. I (< 1.5 cm)

< .001

2.157

1.410

3.300

EHS classification

0.002

Lateral vs. combined

0.016

1.725

1.108

2.686

Medial vs. lateral

0.032

1.272

1.020

1.585

Medial vs. combined

< .001

2.194

1.388

3.470

Risk factors

0.008

Yes vs. no

 

0.703

0.543

0.910

ASA score

0.035

III/IV vs. II

0.166

1.258

0.909

1.742

III/IV vs. I

0.013

1.645

1.109

2.442

II vs. I

0.040

1.308

1.013

1.689

BMI (5-point OR)

0.069

  

0.861

0.733

1.011

Drainage

0.083

Yes vs. no

 

0.584

0.319

1.072

Age (10-year OR)

0.262

  

1.047

0.966

1.136

Mesh size (10-point OR)

0.597

  

0.985

0.930

1.043

Discussion

This present analysis of data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry reveals highly significant differences in the postoperative complication rate in relation to the fixation technique for male patients with TAPP repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. For example, the overall postoperative complication rate for non-fixation was 1.8%, for tack fixation 3.0%, and for glue fixation 4.8% (p < 0.001). Seroma accounted for the greatest proportion of postoperative complications. Here, too, a highly significant difference was detected in relation to mesh fixation (non-fixation 0.7% vs. tacks 2.1% vs. glue 3.9%; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed the highly significant influence exerted by the fixation technique on the seroma rate. Glue compared to tacks and non-fixation resulted in a higher seroma rate. But also tacks compared to non-fixation led to a higher seroma rate. Accordingly, no mesh fixation clearly had the lowest seroma rate. That could be one explanation for the lower seroma rates after TEP than after TAPP [8], since as per the guidelines [1, 2] mesh fixation is rarely used for TEP, whereas as evidenced by the present data this continues to be used in 65% of cases for TAPP [24]. But the evidence-based data demonstrate that even for TAPP mesh fixation can be omitted for hernia defects up to 3 cm (EHS LI, II and MI, II) [1, 2]. Based on the registry data only a defect size of more than 3 cm (EHS LIII, MIII), and here in particular medial and combined defects, requires mesh fixation [24]. Accordingly, as for TEP, mesh fixation can be dispensed with more often for TAPP, too. With a current proportion that continues to be as high as 65% [24], the fixation rate can still be markedly reduced for TAPP. Omission of fixation might then positively impact the seroma rate after TAPP.

Naturally, smaller defects also present a lower risk of seroma formation, as do lateral compared to medial inguinal hernias. Lateral defects in line with the anatomy of the groin have a curtain-like closure after excision of the hernia sac from the inguinal canal, whereas a medial hernia defect will persist as evagination of the transversalis fascia once repaired. It should therefore be reduced to prevent it from being filled with serous fluid. Various techniques have been proposed in the literature to that effect. Reddy [4] recommends the inversion of the extended transversalis fascia and fixation with tacks to the pubic bone. Technically, this is only feasible through the use of permanent tacks. Besides, the use of tacks can trigger chronic pain. Berney [5] recommends using a Röder loop, where the inverted transversalis fascia is ligated with the Röder loop such that the entrance to the medial hernia sac is closed and the sac completely reduced. Alternatively, the inverted transversalis fascia can be fixed to Cooper’s ligament with a suture and the hernia sac completely reduced in the same manner [25]. Using these techniques the problem of seroma formation can be completely prevented for a large medial inguinal hernia in both TEP and TAPP. Therefore this technique is urgently recommended in the guidelines [1, 2].

The aforementioned findings also highlight the potential role of drain placement for prevention of seromas. To date, only very few publications recommend the use of a drain [19, 20]. The results of multivariable analysis demonstrate a trend towards a protective role for a drain in reducing seroma formation after TAPP. But as arguments against drains complications and pain induced by drains must be mentioned. Since drains are used more commonly for TEP [25], this might also explain the difference in the seroma rate for TAPP vs. TEP.

There are reports in the literature that could explain the higher seroma rates identified on using glues. An experimental study with the cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives Glubran and Ifabond demonstrated that synthetic glues triggered evident seroma formation in the form of an inflammatory reaction [26]. This was caused by the toxic property of cyanoacrylate which, as far as possible, is reduced by means of chemical changes [26]. Some studies have reported that the fibrin glue Tisseel/Tissucol is associated with higher rates of seroma formation than staple fixation although that finding has been inconsistent [27]. It is likely that the avoidance of drop formation and local accumulation by spraying the fibrin sealant reduces the incidence of seroma formation [27].

The present study has a number of limitations. The registry does not contain any data on how the peritoneum was closed. Nor is any information given on whether the diagnosis “seroma” was based on physical examination or radiography. The possibility of confusing seromas with early hernia recurrences cannot be ruled out either.

In summary, it has been demonstrated that the seroma rate in male patients with TAPP repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia is negatively influenced by mesh fixation with tacks or glue. Non-mesh fixation was associated with the lowest seroma rate. This can also explain the difference in the seroma rate between TEP and TAPP to the disadvantage of the latter technique since for TAPP mesh fixation continues to be used in 65% of cases. But the evidence-based data demonstrate that, as for TEP, mesh fixation should generally only be used, in TAPP too, for hernia defects of more than 3 cm (EHS LIII, MIII), and in particular for medial hernias. Otherwise, seroma formation is commonly encountered for large inguinal hernias, and especially for large medial inguinal hernias. Therefore medial defects should either be secured with a suture to Cooper’s ligament or reduced with a Roeder loop. Furthermore, there appears to be a trend towards a positive role for drain placement after TAPP in reducing seroma formation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Ferdinand Köckerling received grants to fund the Herniamed Registry from Johnson & Johnson, Norderstedt; Karl Storz, Tuttlingen; PFM medical, Cologne; Dahlhausen, Cologne; B Braun, Tuttlingen; MenkeMed, Munich; and Bard, Karlsruhe.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

R. Bittner, D. Adolf, R. Fortelny, H. Niebuhr, F. Mayer, C. Schug-Pass have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RL, Fortelny RH, Klinge U, Köckerling F, Kuhry E, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Sauerland S, Schug-Pass C, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25(9):2773–2843.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1799-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, Bansal V, Bingener J, Bisgaard T, Buhck H, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Frotelny RH, Grimes KL, Klinge U, Köckerling F, Kumar S, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Signh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P (2015) International Endohernia Society update of guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia (International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc 29(2):289–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3917-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poelman MM, van den Heuvel B, Deelder JD, Abis GS, Beudeker N, Bittner R, Campanelli G, van Dam D, Dwars BJ, Eker HH, Fingerhut A, Khatkov I, Köckerling F, Kukleta JF, Miserez M, Montgomery A, Munoz Brands RM, Morales-Conde S, Muysoms FE, Soltes M, Tromp W, Yavuz Y, Bonjer HJ (2013) EAES consensus development conference on endoscopic repair of groin. Hernias Surg Endosc 27(10):3505–3519.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3001-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 11:393–396.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-007-0233-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berney CR (2012) The Endoloop technique for the primary closure of direct inguinal hernia defect during the endoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach. Hernia 16:301–305.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0892-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R (2005) Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 19:188–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9126-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panse M, Deshpande N, Mandhane A, Bhalerao P (2013) Seroma prevention technique following endoscopic direct inguinal hernia repair. J Evol Med Dental Sci 2:4928–4932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Jacob DA, Seidelmann L, Keller T, Adolf D, Kraft B, Kuthe A (2015) TEP versus TAPP: comarison of the perioperative outcome in 17,587 patients with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 29:3750–3760.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4150-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Köckerling F, Stechemesser B, Hukauf M, Kuthe A, Schug-Pass C (2015) TEP versus Lichtenstein: which technique is better for the repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernias in men? Surg Endosc 30(8):3304–3313.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4603-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lau H, Lee F (2003) Seroma following endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty. Surg Endosc 17:1773–1777.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8771-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choi YY, Kim Z, Hur KY (2011) Swelling after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernias: review of one surgeon’s experience in 1,065 cases. World J Surg 35:43–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0843-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bittner R, Schmedt CG, Leibl BJ, Schwarz J (2011) Early postoperative and one year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing the impact of extralight titanized polypropylene mesh and traditional heavyweight polypropylene mesh on pain and seroma production in laparoscopic hernia repair (TAPP). World J Surg 35:1791–1797.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1148-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Currie A, Andrew H, Tonsi A, Hurley PR, Taribagil S (2012) Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26(8):2126–2133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/ss00464-012-2179-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garg P, Rajagopal M, Varghese V, Ismail M (2009) Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with nonfixation of the mesh for 1,692 hernias. Surg Endosc 23(6):1241–1245.  https://doi.org/10.1007/ss00464-008-0137-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teng YL, Pan SM, Liu YL, Yang KH, Zhang YC, Tian JH, Han JX (2011) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of fixation versus nofixation of mesh in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 25(9):2849–2858.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1668-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah NS, Fullwood C, Siriwardena AK, Sheen AJ (2014) Mesh fixation at laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis comparing tissue glue and tack fixation. World J Surg 38(10):2558–2570.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2547-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li J, Ji Z, Zhang W (2015) Staple fixation against adhesive fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(6):471–477.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000214 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antoniou SA, Köhler G, Antoniou GA, Muysoms FE, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2016) Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing nonpenetrating vs mechanical mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.06.008 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ismail M, Garg M, Rajagopal M, Garg P (2009) Impact of closed-suction drain in preperitoneal space on the incidence of seroma formation after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19(3):263–266.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181a4d0e1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gao D, Wei S, Zhai C, Chen J, Li M, Gu C, Wu H (2015) Clinical research of preperitoneal drainage after endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 19:789–794.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1310-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stechemesser B, Jacob DA, Schug-Pass C, Köckerling F (2012) Herniamed: an internet-based registry for outcome research in hernia surgery. Hernia 16(3):269–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0908-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haapaniemi S, Nilsson E (2002) Recurrence and pain three years after groin hernia repair: validation of postal questionnaire and selective physical examination as a method of follow up. Eur J Surg 168(1):22–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/110241502317307535 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miserez M, Alexandre JH, Campanelli G, Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, Pascual MH, Hoeferlin A, Kingsnorth AN, Mandala V, Palot JP, Schumpelick V, Simmermacher RK, Stoppa R, Flament JB (2007) The European hernia society groin hernia classification: simple and easy to remember. Hernia 11(2):113–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-007-0198-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mayer F, Niebuhr H, Lechner M, Dinnewitzer A, Köhler G, Hukauf M, Fortelny RH, Bittner R, Köckerling F (2016) When is mesh fixation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair necessary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases. Surg Endosc 30(10):4363–4371.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4754-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Köckerling F (2017) Evidence-based TEP technique. Chirurg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0360-5 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pascual G, Sotomayor S, Rodriguez M, Pérez-Köhler B, Kühnhardt A, Fernández-Gutiérrez M, San Román J, Bellón JM (2016) Cytotoxicity of cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives and short-term preclinical in vivo biocompatibility in abdominal hernia repair. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0157920.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157920 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fortelny RH, Petter-Puchner AH, Glaser KS, Redl H (2012) Use of fibrin sealant (Tisseel/Tissucol) in hernia repair: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26(7):1803–1812.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2156.0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Köckerling
    • 1
  • R. Bittner
    • 2
  • D. Adolf
    • 3
  • R. Fortelny
    • 4
  • H. Niebuhr
    • 5
  • F. Mayer
    • 6
  • C. Schug-Pass
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical SchoolVivantes HospitalBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Hernia CenterWinghofer MedicumRottenburg am NeckarGermany
  3. 3.StatConsult GmbHMagdeburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of General, Visceral and Oncologic SurgeryWilhelminenhospitalViennaAustria
  5. 5.Hanse-Hernia CenterHamburgGermany
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations