Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_842_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Preface
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1: Clinical Anatomy of the Groin: Posterior Laparoscopic Approach
- •2.1.2 Contralateral Side
- •References
- •1.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •2.1.1 General
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •Suggested Reading
- •Journals
- •Books
- •Miscellaneous
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Patient-Related Factors
- •6.3 Hernia-Related Factors
- •6.4 Surgeon-Related Factors
- •6.5 Anesthesia-Related Factors
- •6.6 Conclusion
- •6.9 Anesthesia-Related Factors
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 North American Trial
- •7.3 UK Trial
- •7.4 Long-Term Follow-Up
- •7.5 Summary
- •References
- •8: Perioperative Management of Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •8.1.2 Dynamic Inguinal Ultrasound (DIUS)
- •Results
- •8.1.3 Treatment Plan
- •8.3.2 Perioperative Antibiotics
- •8.3.3 Thromboembolic Prophylaxis
- •Therapeutic Approach
- •Physical Activities
- •Heparin
- •Duration of VTE-Prophylaxis
- •8.3.8 Postoperative Pain Control
- •8.3.9 Discharge Management
- •8.4.1 Clinical Examination
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.1.2 Instruments
- •9.1.3 Operative Room Setup
- •Diagnostic Round View
- •9.2.4 Special Technical Remarks
- •Cord Lipoma
- •9.2.6 Comments
- •9.2.7 Peritoneal Closure
- •9.2.8 Port-Site Closure
- •References (in parentheses graduation of evidence)
- •10.1 Complications
- •10.1.3 Ad 3: Bowel Lesion
- •10.1.4 Ad 4. Urinary Bladder Injury
- •10.1.5 Ad 5. Hematoma/Seroma
- •10.1.7 Ad 7. Wound/Mesh Infection
- •10.1.8 Ad 8: Bowel Obstruction
- •10.1.10 Ad 10. Trocar Hernias
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •Case 3
- •Case 4
- •References
- •11.1 History
- •11.2 Standard Technique [10–13]
- •11.2.1 Patient Preparation
- •11.2.2 Antibiotic Prophylaxis
- •11.2.3 Thromboembolic Prophylaxis
- •11.2.4 Patient Positioning
- •11.2.5 Anesthesia
- •11.2.6 Team Positioning
- •11.2.7 Instruments
- •11.2.9 Dissection
- •11.2.10 Mesh Placement
- •11.3.1 Bilateral Inguinal Hernias
- •11.3.2 Recurrent Inguinal Hernias
- •11.3.3 Scrotal Hernias
- •11.3.4 Incarcerated Hernias
- •References
- •12: Technique Total Extraperitoneal Patch Plasty (TEP): Complications, Prevention, Education, and Preferences
- •12.1 Intraoperative Complications
- •12.1.3 Bleeding
- •12.1.7 Bladder Injury
- •12.1.8 Bowel Injury
- •12.1.10 Conversion
- •12.2 Postoperative Complications
- •12.2.1 Hematoma/Bleeding
- •12.2.2 Seroma
- •References
- •13: Comparison TAPP vs. TEP: Which Technique Is Better?
- •14.2.1 Preoperative Considerations
- •14.3.1 Post-op Care
- •13.3.2 Learning Curve
- •14: Complex Inguinal Hernias
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Inguinoscrotal Hernias
- •14.4.1 Evidence [3, 4]
- •Level 3
- •Level 5
- •14.6.1 Level 3
- •14.7.1 Level 3
- •14.7.2 Level 5
- •Level 5
- •14.8 Recurrent Inguinal Hernias
- •Level 2
- •Level 3
- •Level II
- •Level IIC
- •14.9 Femoral Hernias
- •14.10 Obturator Hernia
- •14.11.1 Evidence [3, 4]
- •Level 4
- •Grade C
- •14.12.1 Evidence [3, 4]
- •Level 3
- •Grade D
- •14.13 Bilateral Hernia
- •14.13.1 Evidence [3]
- •References
- •15: Mesh Technology at Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •15.1 Biocompatibility
- •15.1.1 Synthetic Nonabsorbable
- •15.1.2 Synthetic Absorbable
- •15.1.3 Biological
- •15.2 Size
- •15.3 Slit: Yes or No?
- •15.4 Fixation (René H. Fortelny)
- •Recurrence
- •15.4.2 Glue Fixation
- •Permanent Versus Nonpermanent Fixation (Staple/Tack Versus Glue)
- •Recurrence
- •15.4.4 Self–Fixating Mesh
- •15.5 Summary
- •References
- •Biocompatibility
- •Fixation (Rene Fortelny)
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2.2 Postoperative Activity
- •16.3.2 Postoperative Activity
- •References
- •17: Chronic Postoperative Inguinal Pain (CPIP)
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.5 Diagnostics
- •17.14 Selective Neurectomy
- •17.15 Triple Neurectomy
- •17.18 Mesh Removal
- •17.19 Conclusion
- •References
- •18: Costs
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.6.4 Non-commercial Mesh
- •References
- •19: Sportsmen Hernia
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.3 How Is This Entity Diagnosed?
- •19.3.1 Physical Examination
- •19.3.2 Ultrasound
- •19.4 How Is This Entity Treated?
- •19.4.1 Conservative Treatment
- •19.4.2 Surgery
- •References
- •20.1.1 Introduction
- •Operative Time
- •Chronic Pain
- •Recurrences
- •20.1.4 Clinical Practice
- •References
- •21.2.1 Access Devices
- •21.2.2 Telescope
- •21.2.3 Instruments
- •21.3.1 Indications
- •21.3.2 Preoperative Preparation
- •21.4 Operation Theater Layout
- •21.5 Surgical Techniques
- •21.5.1 Reduced Port TEP
- •21.5.2 Reduced Port TAPP
- •References
- •22: Anatomy of the Abdominal Wall: What Is Important for Laparoscopic Surgery?
- •22.1.1 Introduction
- •22.1.2 The Body Wall
- •22.1.4 Topographic Situation
- •22.2 The Surgical View
- •22.2.1 Introduction
- •22.2.2 Abdominal Entry
- •22.2.3 Hernia Location
- •22.2.4 Fixation
- •22.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •Absolute Contraindications
- •Relative Contraindications
- •References
- •Indications for Laparoscopic Surgery: Limitations
- •24.1 Part I
- •24.2 Part II
- •References
- •25.1 Introduction
- •References
- •26.1 Part I
- •References
- •27: Standard Technique Laparoscopic Repair of Ventral and Incisional Hernia
- •27.1 Introduction
- •27.3 Pneumoperitoneum
- •27.6 Dissection Techniques
- •27.6.1 Adhesiolysis
- •27.7.1 Introduction
- •27.7.2 Problem
- •27.7.3 Method
- •27.7.4 Results
- •27.7.5 Discussion
- •27.7.6 Conclusion
- •27.8.1 Introduction
- •27.8.2 Indication
- •27.8.3 Technique
- •27.8.4 Discussion
- •27.8.5 Conclusion
- •27.9.1 Mesh Sizing
- •27.9.2 Mesh Manipulation
- •27.9.3 Mesh Fixation
- •References
- •28.1 Introduction
- •References
- •29: Complications, Pitfalls and Prevention of Complications of Laparoscopic Incisional and Ventral Hernia Repair and Comparison to Open Repair
- •29.1 Introduction
- •29.2 Bowel Injury
- •29.3 Infection
- •29.3.1 Patient-Related Risk Factors
- •29.3.2 Surgery-Related Risk Factors
- •29.4 Mesh Infection
- •29.5 Seroma
- •29.5.1 Risk Factors
- •29.6 Pain
- •29.7 Recurrence
- •29.7.1 Risk Factors
- •29.8 Miscellaneous Complications
- •References
- •30.2 Discussion
- •References
- •31.4 Parastomal Hernias
- •31.5 Obese Patients
- •References
- •Recurrence After Previous Open Repair
- •Recurrence After Previous Laparoscopic Repair
- •Giant Hernias: Loss of Domain
- •Parastomal Hernias
- •Obese Patients
- •References
- •33.1 Summary
- •References
- •34.1 Introduction
- •34.2 Operative Technique
- •34.3 Preliminary Results
- •34.4 Discussion
- •34.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •35.1 Introduction
- •35.2 Laparoscopic Technique
- •35.3 Evidence
- •35.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •References
- •37.4 Diagnostic Work-Up
- •37.6 Perioperative Management
- •References
- •38.2 Division of Short Gastric Vessels
- •38.4 Cruroplasty
- •38.5 Fundoplication
- •38.6 Mesh Augmentation
- •References
- •39.1 Suture Versus Mesh Repair
- •References
- •40.1.1 Introduction
- •40.1.2 Intraoperative Complications
- •40.1.6 Laparoscopic Approach
- •40.1.8 Postoperative Care
- •40.2.1 Comments
- •40.2.2 Comments
- •40.2.3 Comments
- •References
- •Praxis in Detail, “How I do It”, Daily Routine Tips and Tricks
- •Is What I am Doing Every Day Evidence Based?
- •41: Complex Hiatal Hernias
- •41.1 Upside-Down Stomach
- •41.1.2 Mesh Augmentation
- •Hiatal Surface Area (HSA)
- •Hiatus Reconstruction
- •Fundoplication
- •Follow-Up
- •41.1.4 Summary
- •41.2 Short Esophagus
- •41.2.1 Introduction
- •Types [38]
- •Diagnosis
- •Management
- •41.2.3 Treatment Options Include
- •Open
- •Laparoscopic
- •Intrathoracic Fundoplication
- •Esophagectomy
- •Collis Procedure
- •41.2.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Upside-Down Stomach
- •Short Esophagus
- •42.1 Recurrent Hiatus Hernia
- •42.1.1 Introduction
- •42.1.2 Clinical Presentation
- •42.1.3 Management
- •References
- •Recurrent Hiatus Hernia
- •Hiatal Hernia Repair in Obese Patients
- •References
- •44.1 Introduction
- •44.2 Indications
- •44.3 Preoperative Preparation
- •44.3.1 SILS Hiatal Hernia Repair
- •Operation Theater Layout
- •Instrumentation
- •Single Incision Multiple Fascial Puncture Method
- •Homemade Glove Port Method
- •Multichannel Port Method
- •44.5.1 Robotic Hiatus Hernia Repair
- •Operation Theater Layout
- •Instrumentation
- •44.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •45.1 Introduction
- •45.2 Training Center
- •45.2.1 Teaching Faculty
- •45.2.2 Interactive Classroom Teaching
- •45.2.4 Animal and Cadaveric Laboratory for Training
- •45.2.9 Learning Curve
- •45.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •46.1.2 Hemodynamic Changes
- •46.3 Anesthesia Practice
- •46.7 Summary
- •References
- •Index

196
R. M. Wilke et al.
16.1 Introduction
e surgical consultation for inguinal hernia is
one of the most frequent encounters and is seen in
all types of healthcare systems. e resulting
socioeconomic inuences are not to be underestimated. ey result on one hand from the hospitalization itself and on the other hand they are also
signicantly inuenced by the recovery.
It is still customary to have several weeks of
inability to work aer inguinal hernia surgery
without any valid scientic evidence to account
for this. e German Federal Institute for Worker
Protection and Employee Health has been estimating the cost of the inability to work. Every
year 9.1 billion Euro is lost in production and
about 16 billion Euro in lost GDP (gross domestic
product) which result in a potentially large preventable loss [1]. In the changing values of today’s
society, not only is the earlier return to work
important, but also a changed lifestyle plays an
increasing role. Prolonged postoperative limitations for activities of daily living and the pursuit
of athletic activities are no longer well tolerated.
dissection and atraumatic xation of mesh, we use
the preemptive inltration of local anesthetics in
the umbilical trocar site, as well as the ilioinguinal
block of the aected side. Postoperatively we recommend nonopioid-containing analgesics.
Ibuprofen or Cox-2 inhibitors have been performing well in this role. During the hospital stay, which
usually lasts about 24 h, we routinely prescribe
400mg of ibuprofen every 8h or a Cox-2 inhibitor
in combination with a gastric ulcer prophylaxis.
Aer the patient leaves the hospital, we only recommend pain medication as needed. Special attention is needed if unexpectedly high use of pain
medication is noted. High need for pain medication should be taken seriously, and relevant complications should be excluded. Should the
postoperative pain last longer than 3 months, other
diagnostic exams may need to be performed, such
as orthopedic, urologic, or gynecologic consultation and the investigation of intestinal organs by
ultrasound or colonoscopy. Finally, the groin pain
can also be somatic pain that is attributed to the
groin region.
16
16.2 Postoperative Follow-up inMy
Practice: How IDo It
e most important element of good postoperative follow-up care consists of the avoidance of
postoperative pain and the individualized recommendation for return to work or physical activity
in order to avoid recurrent hernia. e appropriate treatment of unexpected postoperative results
during a postoperative clinic visit is also very
important.
16.2.1 Postoperative Pain
Syndromes
e most frequent complaint in the early postoperative phase is pain. Adequate prophylaxis of postoperative pain begins before incision. In our clinics,
we oen nd patients who may have lower pain
tolerance than the average population. Oen these
patients are suering signicantly from pain but
have limited clinical ndings to explain why.
Especially for this population, great attention
should be paid to excellent preemptive preoperative pain medication. In addition to a nerve- sparing
16.2.2 Postoperative Activity
e recommendation to limit physical activity
aer surgery is frequently in the duration of 2
weeks. Athletic activities with high intensity in
the groin should especially be avoided. If the
patient is allowed to be more active and overexerts himself, this can result in disappointed expectations by the patient. Generally the majority of
patients can return to full work activity at 2 weeks.
If a patient has a high physical workload, it is recommended to see them for a follow-up visit and
assess if additional recovery time is needed.
16.2.3 Postoperative Visit
intheClinic
A general exam aer surgery for all patients is not
necessary. Nevertheless, it is important that a practitioner with experience is available. If a competent
site is not available, operative pain or other problems
can lead to chronic pain syndromes. is can then
lead to several additional consultations with dierent physicians and frequently to unnecessary hernia
surgery revisions. Early evaluation for patients with
problems is very important. A groin examination by

bc
Aftercare andRecovery inLaparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Surgery
197
a
. Fig.16.1 a Order of a general doctor to check a mesh dislocation. b and c MRI control of an implanted visible mesh
16
ultrasound is an invaluable instrument to understand the postoperative results. Generally there will
be seromas which do not require any further therapy. Larger symptomatic seromas can be aspirated if
they are situated in the extraperitoneal space outside
of the inguinal canal. Further, not unusual are small
hematomas in patients with chronic anticoagulation. An aspiration should be avoided in this situation. It is dicult to demonstrate the correct mesh
position in the postoperative situation. Ultrasound
is oen not adequate. Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) can be used for meshes that are visible during
MRI.is is possibly an optimal tool in the future
for the assessment of postoperative problems
(. Fig.16.1a–c).
16.3 Postoperative Follow-up:
What Is Evidence Based?
e question of correct postoperative follow-up
and recommendations for physical activity has not
been established scientically. It almost appears
that with close of the skin incision, the evidencebased surgery is nished, and eminence- based
opinions and individual experience are introduced
into the daily clinical routine. e current algorithms for follow-up are based on experiences of
open hernia surgery from the 1990s in respect to
postoperative pain and wound infections [2, 3]. A
number of technical modications and innovations in open surgery as well as laparoscopic surgery are constantly inuencing our daily activities.
A unied standard in the prophylaxis of postoperative pain and recurrence of hernia has not been
established. Eorts to use the registry data from
Scandinavia or the German Herniamed registry to
dene generally valid follow- up guidelines have
not been successful. e reasons for this are multiple. Laparoscopic hernia surgery is an individualized tailored approach. Many factors such as
comorbidity and professional and athletic activity
play a role in the postoperative follow-up, as well
as the technical variations in the care. In addition,
the increasing outpatient treatment of minimally
invasive groin hernia surgery results in the early
postoperative follow-up oen being provided by
primary care physicians and that can be regionally
diverse.
16.3.1 Postoperative Pain
Syndromes fromtheOpen
Groin Hernia Surgery
We know that preemptive local anesthesia in the
operative eld leads to excellent results [4–7]. e
use of an ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended for prophylaxis of early postoperative pain [8, 9]. In
addition, perioperative injection of local anesthetic in the laparoscopic trocar sites should be
performed [9]. Standardized oral medication with
low-level analgesics should be given within the
rst 48 h. e individual pain control can be
adjusted using the VAS (visual analog scale) score
system. We recommend to follow the new
American guidelines for this [10]. If intraoperative nerve damage has resulted in postoperative
pain, the inltration of corticosteroid-containing
injections is widely used; however, there is no
valid scientic recommendation [11]. If postoperative pain is persistent for more than 3 months,
the chronic pain syndrome has to be assumed.
How stimulative neuromodulation contributes to
pain relief is not clear [12].

198
R. M. Wilke et al.
16
16.3.2 Postoperative Activity
e etiology of the hernia recurrence is not well
known. Individual patient factors or technical
errors of the surgeon have been being widely discussed. However, the question remains how a
recurrence can be avoided. While tobacco abstinence is still discussed for recurrence and pain
avoidance with controversy [13], the several- weeklong recommendation for decreased physical
activity appears to be out of date. Although there
are no new investigations, early postoperative
activity aer hernia surgery is generally used in
clinical practice [2–4]; however, a general recommendation for the full ability of return to work and
athletic ability cannot globally be made. e specic patient needs are very individualized. It is certain that early physical activity has no inuence on
a recurrence [14]. A study using registry data from
Denmark cites a recuperation of about 2 days [15].
erefore, the current clinical practice is that activities of daily living can be immediately resumed
and sport activities within 14days aer surgery.
16.3.3 Postoperative Visit
intheClinic
Optimal evaluation for postoperative complication
includes the early evaluation by the surgeon.
Ultrasound has been established as a necessary tool
in detecting hernia because of its dynamic options.
A frequent problem is the management of
postoperative seromas. ese oen result aer
repair of a large hernia or aer absorbing hematomas. e frequency of a postoperative seroma
is estimated to be about 7% of all operative cases
[14]; however, in the clinical practice, it may be
much higher. Smaller seromas rarely lead to any
symptoms and oen absorb by themselves.
Aspiration is not indicated and unnecessary [4].
A retrospective analysis revealed that of an initial
18.7% of patients with seroma aer elective laparoscopic hernia repair, only 1.7% resulted in a
chronic seroma [16]. It should be discussed
whether this small number of chronic seromas
should be aspirated despite the current general
opinion, especially when permanent pain is
associated with a seroma and can only be controlled with systemic or peripheral analgesics.
Oen the formation of a seroma can be avoided.
A prophylactic maneuver, for example, is the
operative gathering of the transversalis fascia for
large direct hernias or the consequent dissection
of a hernia sac with a large indirect defect [14].
While the use of ultrasound for the identication of a hernia has been evaluated and has been
proven to be a valid imaging tool, there are only a
few studies about the postoperative use of ultrasound. Postoperative ultrasound imaging appears
to make sense in the rst weeks aer surgery. If
the patient is at unusually high risk, close monitoring within the rst 48h aer surgery could be
entertained. e routine use of ultrasound before
the patient is discharged home is possible and
oen used and, however, does not qualitatively
improve the overall outcome and therefore should
not be done [17].
A frequent problem is the late postoperative
evaluation, especially in relationship to the position of the augmentation if the mesh is already
integrated into the abdominal wall. Ultrasound
evaluation is only vague, and in this situation,
results are uncertain. Obviously, the change of
position of a laparoscopically introduced mesh
into the groin can happen immediately postoperatively independently of the xation. Magnetic
resonance imaging is helpful for the dierential
diagnosis in most cases [18]. e use of meshes
that can be visualized even aer years of ingrowth
can be helpful in revealing the exact details of the
mesh and the question of a recurrence [19, 20].
A rarely verbalized but quite relevant question
is that of sexual postoperative activity. A study
from the Danish registry revealed 3.1% of patients
experienced a transient dysfunction of ejaculation, with 10.9% of all patients in the rst week
postoperatively [21]. Here it is important to
remain patient as many of these problems will
resolve by themselves over time. Permanent laparoscopic hernia repair induced-based infertility is
unlikely based on the current evidence [22, 23].
References
1. Brenscheidt F, Nöllenheidt CH, Siefer A.Arbeitswelt im
Wandel: Zahlen - Daten - Fakten. Ausgabe 2012 1.
Auage. Dortmund. ISBN: 978-3-88261-706-1, 86
Seiten, Papier, PDF-Datei; 2012.
2. Callesen T, Klarskov B, Bech K, Kehlet H.Short convalescence after inguinal herniorrhaphy with standardised
recommendations: duration and reasons for delayed
return to work. Eur J Surg. 1999;165(3):236–41.

Aftercare andRecovery inLaparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Surgery
199
16
3. Shulman AG, Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. Returning to
work after herniorrhaphy. BMJ. 1994;309(6949):216–7.
4. Aleri S, Amid PK, Campanelli G, Izard G, Kehlet H,
Wijsmuller AR, Di Miceli D, Doglietto GB.International
guidelines for prevention and management of postoperative chronic pain following inguinal hernia surgery. Hernia. 2011;15(3):239–49.
5. Lange JF, Kaufmann R, Wijsmuller AR, Pierie JP, Ploeg
RJ, Chen DC, Amid PK. An international consensus
algorithm for management of chronic postoperative
inguinal pain. Hernia. 2015;19(1):33–43.
6. Saeed M, Andrabi WI, Rabbani S, Zahur S, Mahmood K,
Andrabi SI, Butt HA, Chaudhry AM.The impact of preemptive ropivacaine in inguinal hernioplasty– a randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2015;13:76–9.
7. Hon SF, Poon CM, Leong HT, Tang YC. Pre-emptive inltration of bupivacaine in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernioplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia.
2009;13(1):53–6.
8. Arora S, Chhabra A, Subramaniam R, Arora MK, Misra
MC, Bansal VK.Transversus abdominis plane block for
laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized
trial. J Clin Anesth. 2016;33:357–64.
9. Meyer A, Bonnet L, Bourbon M, Blanc P.Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) endoscopic inguinal hernia repair
with TAP (transversus abdominis plane) block as a daycase: a prospective cohort study. J Visc Surg.
2015;152(3):155–9.
10. Chou R, Gordon DB, de Leon-Casasola OA, Rosenberg JM, Bickler S, Brennan T, Carter T, Cassidy CL,
Chittenden EH, Degenhardt E, Griffith S, Manworren
R, McCarberg B, Montgomery R, Murphy J, Perkal MF,
Suresh S, Sluka K, Strassels S, Thirlby R, Viscusi E,
Walco GA, Warner L, Weisman SJ, Wu CL.Management of postoperative pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society, the American
Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine,
and the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Committee on Regional Anesthesia, Executive Committee, and Administrative Council. J Pain. 2016;17(2):
131–57.
11. Khan JS, Rai A, Sundara Rajan R, Jackson TD, Bhatia
A.A scoping review of perineural steroids for the treatment of chronic postoperative inguinal pain. Hernia.
2016;20(3):367–76.
12. Schu S, Gulve A, ElDabe S, Baranidharan G, Wolf K,
Demmel W, Rasche D, Sharma M, Klase D, Jahnichen G,
Wahlstedt A, Nijhuis H, Liem L.Spinal cord stimulation
of the dorsal root ganglion for groin pain-a retrospective review. Pain Pract. 2015;15(4):293–9.
13. Wieskopf JS, Mathur J, Limapichat W, Post MR, AlQazzaz M, Sorge RE, Martin LJ, Zaykin DV, Smith SB,
Freitas K, Austin JS, Dai F, Zhang J, Marcovitz J, Tuttle
AH, Slepian PM, Clarke S, Drenan RM, Janes J, Al Sharari
S, Segall SK, Aasvang EK, Lai W, Bittner R, etal. The
nicotinic α6 subunit gene determines variability in
chronic pain sensitivity via cross-inhibition of P2X2/3
receptors. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(287):287–72.
14. Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, Bansal V, Bingener J.Update of guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP)
and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia
(International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc.
2015;29(2):289–321.
15. Tolver MA, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T. Convalescence
after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a qualitative
systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(12):5165–72.
16. Mercoli H, Tzedakis S, D’Urso A, Nedelcu M, Memeo R,
Meyer N, Vix M, Perretta S, Mutter D. Postoperative
complications as an independent risk factor for recurrence after laparoscopic hernia repair: a prospective
study of 417 patients with long-term follow- up. Surg
Endosc. 2016;31(3):1469–77.
17. Pochhammer J, Lang S, Scu B, Schäer M, Smaxwil
CA.Are routine ultrasound examinations helpful in the
detection of bleeding complications following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair? J Clin Ultrasound.
2016;45(3):145–9.
18. Burgmans JP, Voorbrood CE, Van Dalen T, Boxhoorn
RN, Clevers GJ, Sanders FB, Naafs DB, Simmermacher
RK.Chronic pain after TEP inguinal hernia repair, does
MRI reveal a cause? Hernia. 2016;20(1):55–62.
19. Ciritsis A, Truhn D, Hansen NL, Otto J, Kuhl CK, Kraemer
NA.Positive contrast MRI techniques for visualization
of iron-loaded hernia mesh implants in patients. PLoS
One. 2016;11(5):e0155717.
20. Hansen NL, Ciritsis A, Otto J, Busch D, Kuhl CK, Kraemer
NA.Utility of magnetic resonance imaging to monitor
surgical meshes: correlating imaging and clinical outcome of patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair.
Investig Radiol. 2015;50(7):436–42.
21. Bischo JM, Linderoth G, Aasvang EK, Werner MU,
Kehlet H. Dysejaculation after laparoscopic inguinal
herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study.
Surg Endosc. 2012;26(4):979–83.
22. Hallén M, Westerdahl J, Nordin P, Gunnarsson U, Sandblom G.Mesh hernia repair and male infertility: a retrospective register study. Surgery. 2012;151(1):94–8.
23. Tolver MA, Rosenberg J. Pain during sexual activity
before and after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3722–5.

201
Chronic Postoperative Inguinal Pain (CPIP)
WolfgangReinpold andDavidChen
17.1 Introduction – 203
17.2 Denition ofChronic Pain – 203
17.3 Epidemiology ofChronic Pain – 203
17.4 Characterization andMechanisms ofCPIP – 204
17.5 Diagnostics – 204
17.6 Risk Factors andPain Prevention – 205
17
17.7 Nerve Management inOpen and
Laparoendoscopic Groin Hernia Repair – 206
17.8 Treatment ofChronic Post- inguinal
Hernia Repair Pain – 207
17.9 Pharmacologic andNon- pharmacologic
Treatment Options – 208
17.10 Role ofInterventional Nerve Blocks – 208
17.11 Nerve Stimulation, Spinal Cord Stimulation,
andNeuromodulation – 209
17.12 Operative Treatment ofPost- inguinal
Herniorrhaphy Inguinodynia – 209
17.13 Neurectomy forNeuropathic Inguinodynia – 209
17.14 Selective Neurectomy – 210
17.15 Triple Neurectomy – 210
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018
R. Bittner et al. (eds.), Laparo-endoscopic Hernia Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55493-7_17

17.16 Approach: Open Triple Neurectomy – 211
17.17 Approach: Endoscopic Retroperitoneal Triple
Neurectomy – 211
17.18 Mesh Removal – 212
17.19 Conclusion – 212
References – 213

Chronic Postoperative Inguinal Pain (CPIP)
203
17
17.1 Introduction
It is well established that almost every surgical
intervention may lead to chronic pain. According
to published trials with systematic data collection,
the highest chronic pain rates are reported aer
leg amputation, thoracotomy, and breast surgery
with 60%, 50%, and 30%, respectively [1].
e last decades’ main advances in hernia
repair are characterized by the global introduction of mesh and laparoendoscopic techniques.
Today it is generally accepted that chronic pain is
the most frequent complication aer inguinal
hernia repair. Fortunately, chronic pain is currently attracting more attention not because it is
more prevalent aer mesh repair but because
reduced recurrence rates have shied surgeon’s
main focus to avoiding pain [2].
e rst small case series on CPIP was
reported in 1984 by Harms et al. [3]. In 1996
Cunningham et al. [4] published a prospective
randomized trial of 315 patients comparing
Bassini, McVay, and Shouldice repair with chronic
pain, numbness, and recurrences being primary
outcome parameters. Aer 1 year 63% of the
patients reported inguinal pain, and 12% of
patients suered from moderate-to-severe pain.
Aer 2 years chronic pain rates decreased only
slightly to 54% and 11%, respectively. e predictors for long- term postoperative pain were
absence of a visible bulge before the operation
(p< 0.001), presence of numbness in the surgical
area postoperatively (p < 0.05), and patient
requirement of more than 4 weeks out of work
postoperatively (p < 0.004). e message that
chronic pain is a very frequent late sequela of
open inguinal suture repairs changed many surgeons’ attitude toward hernia repair and sparked
worldwide a very strong interest among hernia
surgeons to prevent and further investigate this
oen complex complication.
Today the search terms “inguinal hernia” and
“chronic pain” yield more than 1.800 citations in
the PubMed database.
17.2 Denition ofChronic Pain
In 1986 the International Association for the Study of
Pain dened chronic pain as pain lasting more than
3months [14]. is denition was used in the majority of studies on chronic postoperative inguinal pain.
However, some authors argued that inammatory
tissue reactions aer mesh repair may lead to a prolonged healing process which may last longer than
3months [4] and changed the denition of chronic
to pain lasting longer than 6months.
In the absence of a more detailed denition of
CPIP, the results of the many trials on chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) are dicult if not
impossible to compare because there is no uniform
assessment of CPIP with regard to pain intensity,
duration of pain episodes, impact on daily activities,
physical activities, and impact on the quality of life.
CPIP can also be classied according to its
location. Most commonly postherniorrhaphy
pain is located in the groin. It may also cause
symptoms in the genitals, thigh, and abdomen.
Testicular pain (orchialgia) should be dierentiated from scrotal skin pain. Moreover, inguinal
hernia repair may also lead to pain-related sexual
dysfunction including dysejaculation [15, 16].
(In the future a more detailed denition and
uniform assessment of CPIP is of utmost importance.)
According to current guidelines, pain specialists and Hernia Surge, a group of international
experts who is working on the rst worldwide
guidelines on inguinal hernia repair CPIP, should
be dened as bothersome and at least moderate
pain with impact on daily activities lasting
3months or longer postoperatively [5, 6].
Today CPIP intensity is mainly assessed by
visual analog scales (VAS) or verbal rating scales
(VRS).
17.3 Epidemiology ofChronic Pain
According to hernia registries, meta-analysis, and
guidelines, 18% (range 0.7–75%) of patients suer
from chronic pain aer open inguinal hernia
repair, and 6% (range 1–16%) report CPIP aer
laparoendoscopic groin hernia repair [1, 6, 7].
is large variance of reported chronic pain
prevalence is due to inconsistent denitions and
assessment of chronic pain in dierent trials.
While some trials dened any visual analog scale
(VAS) score of pain >0 as chronic pain, other
studies considered only VAS scores greater than 3
as chronic pain. Some trials counted only bothersome pain or pain with impact on daily activities
as chronic pain [8], while other trials included
any pain as chronic pain. e use of mesh seems

204
W. Reinpold and D. Chen
17
to reduce the risk of chronic pain [21]. According
to a review of Nienhuijs etal., 11% of the patients
aer a mesh-based inguinal hernia repair suer
from chronic pain of which one quarter report
moderate-to-severe pain [56].
According to a 1year questionnaire follow-up
study of the Danish Database, 29% of the patients
reported pain in the operated groin within the last
month. Eleven percent suered from work- or
leisure-activity impairment, and 4.5% of the
patients needed medical treatment [9]. A 6-year
long-term follow-up study of these chronic pain
patients revealed an overall decrease of CPIP with
less chronic pain in 76%, the same pain in 17%,
and increased pain in 7% of the patients [10].
A trial from the Swedish hernia register on
long-term CPIP (1–6 years aer surgery) reported
similar results: 29% of the patients reported pain
within the last week, and 6% suered from pain
interfering with daily activities [11].
e nding of the Swedish hernia register that
chronic pain decreases over time [11] was not
conrmed by a large prospective multiphase trial
on 781 open primary inguinal hernia repairs (286
Shouldice and 495 Lichtenstein operations). e
chronic pain rate at 6 months and 5 years was
16%, respectively [12].
Currently the German hernia registry
“Herniamed” has documented 106.918 inguinal
hernia repairs with 1-year questionnaire followup: 5% of the patients report pain at rest and 10%
pain during activities and 4% require any kind of
treatment. ese data are in accordance with the
results from the Scandinavian hernia registers.
e incidence of clinically signicant CPIP
with impact on daily activities ranges between 2%
and 12% [5, 8, 13].
Debilitating CPIP with severe impact on normal daily activities or work is reported in 0.5–6%
of the cases [10, 11, 13].
Two to 3% of the patients suer from chronic
postoperative orchialgia.
17.4 Characterization and
Mechanisms ofCPIP
ere are several overlapping causes and mechanisms of pain aer prior inguinal hernia repair
[1–3]. Preoperative and other non-surgery related
causes of CPIP have to be considered and dierentiated. Nociceptive pain is mediated by tissue
damage and (chronic) inammation without
damage of nerval structures. It can be related to
recurrence, muscle or ligamentous strain, perineural brosis, scarring with or without from
mesh, meshoma pain (related to wrinkling,
migration, or folding of mesh), and suture or xation material. Nociceptive pain is characterized as
a dull ache over the groin area commonly
described as gnawing, tender, pulling, or throbbing.
Neuropathic pain may be caused by direct
nerve injury or nerve entrapment related to mesh,
staples, tacks, suture material, scar tissue, neuroma, or tumor formation. Nerve destruction can
also be caused by severe inammation or infection. Neuropathic pain is described as stabbing,
burning, shooting, or pricking, aggravated by
walking or sitting. It is oen also characterized by
paresthesia (burning, pricking, or tingling sensation), hypoesthesia (reduced sensation), allodynia
(pain from a non-painful stimulus), and hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to pain). e majority
of pain experts believe that nerve damage is the
most common cause of CPIP.
No studies have investigated whether nociceptive pain can be reliably distinguished from neuropathic pain and there is considerable overlap in
symptoms, presentation, and ndings. e classication of neuropathic and nociceptive pain has
limited practical signicance because there is no
reproducible diagnostic method of dierentiation
between them. It has to be acknowledged that
every skin incision in open hernia repair leads to
damage of branches and sub-branches of the
inguinal nerves and thus implies the risk of neuropathic pain. Visceral pain may also confound
the picture and contribute to the overall presentation of pain.
17.5 Diagnostics
A careful history and structured physical examination, dermatomal somatosensory mapping,
review of prior operative reports and interventions, and imaging studies are essential to help
delineate the likely mechanism of pain and formulate an eective treatment plan. A recurrent hernia
should always be ruled out. Dermatomal mapping
(DM) may help to characterize cutaneous distributions of pain and to identify injury to one or
more of the inguinal nerves ([31];
. Fig.17.1: foto

Chronic Postoperative Inguinal Pain (CPIP)
. Fig.17.1 Dermatomal mapping: preoperatively painful right groin, after Triple Neurectomy no pain but numbness.
⚪ normal sensitivity, + painful area, − area of numbness
205
of DM). Focused ultrasonography of the groin is
fast, economical, and without morbidity and may
identify recurrence, mesh disruption, infection,
foreign body, seroma/hematoma, and inammation. If unrevealing, cross-sectional imaging with
computed tomography or magnetic resonance
imaging is useful to identify anatomic abnormalities, problems related to the prior repair, and alternative mechanisms for pain.
Due to the great variability and very frequent
interconnections between peripheral anterior
inguinal nerves, diagnostic inguinal blocks are
oen not very helpful to pinpoint the aected
nerve. Aected nerve segments (TH11–L3) can
reliably be identied with periradicular CTguided diagnostic blocks. For the qualitative and
quantitative assessment of pain and quality of life,
standardized questionnaires should be used (i.e.,
SF 36, Carolina Comfort Scale).
17.6 Risk Factors andPain
Prevention
Box 17.1 Risk Factors forCPIP (Strong Risk
Factors inBroad Letters)
Preoperative risk factors:
Female gender
Young age
High intensity of preoperative pain
History of chronic pain other than CPIP
Operation for a recurrent hernia
Genetic predisposition (DQB1*03:02 HLA
haplotype)
Lower preoperative optimism
High pain intensity to tonic heat stimulation
(experimentally induced)
Worker’s compensation
Intraoperative risk factors:
Open repair technique
Inadequate suture/staple/clip mesh xation
Mesh type: heavyweight mesh in open repair
Ilioinguinal nerve neurolysis in Lichtenstein
repair
Ignorance of the inguinal nerves
Less experienced surgeon
Postoperative risk factors:
High early postoperative pain intensity
Sensory dysfunction in the groin
Postoperative complications (hematoma,
infection)
Surgery-related (intra- and postoperative) risk factors have to be dierentiated from those not related
to surgery (7 Box 17.1; [6, 7]). Probably the most
important but presently insuciently analyzed risk
factor of CPIP is the hernia surgeon. e most
detailed analysis of risk factors for CPIP was published in the guidelines for laparoscopic- endoscopic
treatment of inguinal hernia of the International
Endohernia Society (IEHS,6,7). e use of mesh
seems to reduce the risk of CPIP [4, 6, 7, 21].
According to several meta-analyses and guidelines on inguinal hernia repair, there is strong evidence that the risk of acute pain, CPIP, and
numbness is signicantly lower and the return to
normal activities faster aer laparoendoscopic
procedures compared to open techniques [6, 7,
18–22, 57]. e most likely explanation for this
nding is the reduced access trauma and nerve
17

206
W. Reinpold and D. Chen
. Fig.17.2 Posterior
view of the right groin:
According to a recent
cadaver trial, the triangle of
doom and trapezoid of
pain where nerves are at
risk of injury during TAPP
and TEP repair are larger
than previously reported
[30]
17
protecting and preserving plane of dissection in
TAPP and TEP. Covered by a fascial layer, the
inguinal nerves always remain in their natural
embedding. However, traumatic mesh xation in
TEP and TAPP should be avoided. In open repair
the skin incision always implies nerve damage.
Additionally, open mesh implantation oen interferes with the ilioinguinal nerves. e risk of
chronic pain aer TAPP and TEP is the same.
Open posterior mesh repair seems to be related to
less CPIP than open anterior mesh implantation:
A meta-analysis of randomized trials reported
more chronic pain aer Lichtenstein compared to
preperitoneal repair [23].
Other strong risk factors for CPIP are young
age, female gender, high level of preoperative inguinal pain, history of chronic pain other than inguinal, operation for a recurrent hernia, and high early
postoperative pain intensity (7 Box 17.1, [6, 7]).
CPIP risk factors with lower evidence in the
literature are genetic predisposition (DQB1*03:02
HLA haplotype), lower preoperative optimism,
high pain intensity to tonic heat stimulation
(experimentally induced), worker’s compensation, and inadequate use of sutures, staples, clips,
mesh xation, and mesh type: heavyweight mesh
in open repair, ilioinguinal nerve neurolysis in
Lichtenstein repair [12], nerve-ignoring operation technique, less experienced surgeon, and
sensory dysfunction in the groin postoperative
complications (hematoma, infection) (7 Box 17.1;
[5–7, 18–22]). Preoperative quantitative sensory
testing (QST) may help to identify patients with
lowered threshold for heat stimulation who seem
to have a higher risk to suer from CPIP.
17.7 Nerve Management inOpen
andLaparoendoscopic Groin
Hernia Repair
A detailed knowledge of the anterior and posterior inguinal nerve anatomy is of utmost importance for every hernia surgeon. In every open and
laparoendoscopic groin hernia operation, the surgeon should be aware of the nerve anatomy and
pay attention to the nerves. A nerve-ignoring
operation is not acceptable by any means.
In a properly performed TAPP and TEP repair,
the nerves remain untouched in their natural
embedding. A fascial layer protects the nerves
from direct mesh contact. Non-xation or adequate atraumatic mesh xation (. Fig.17.2) minimizes the risk of nerve injury. A recent cadaver
study on the retroperitoneal course of the lumbar
plexus nerves revealed that the territory where the
inguinal nerves can be damaged during laparoendoscopic and open preperitoneal inguinal hernia
repair is larger than previously anticipated [30].
In open groin hernia repair, the nerves are
commonly encountered in the operation eld and
oen interfere with steps of the operation.
Many trials on nerve management in open
groin hernia repair have been conducted. e surgical options are preservation of the nerves with
or without its mobilization, prophylactic neurectomy, or pragmatic neurectomy.
A prospective nonrandomized multicenter of
Aleri etal. [24] compared 310 open mesh repairs
with identication and preservation of the iliohypogastric nerve (IHN), ilioinguinal nerve (IIN),
and genital branch of the genitofemoral nerve
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
