Добавил:
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_903_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
33 Мб
Скачать
420
E. Inga-Zapata and F. García
The goal of the TAPP technique is the creation of a wide peritoneal pocket for mesh placement. The mesh should cover the MPO and extend to the psoas posteri­orly to the rectus and transversus abdominis anteriorly and approach the anterior superior iliac spine laterally and the midline and space of Retzius medially. Care must be taken to prevent any peritoneum from slipping behind the mesh and being a cause for early recurrence. Desufation and reinsufation may alert the surgeon to this occurrence. Hemostasis is assured before placing the mesh, which is introduced rolled in its long axis, and grasped with an atraumatic forceps with an average size of 15cm×10cm. It is upon the surgeon to tailor the size according to patient habi­tus. Classic plain or knitted 3D meshes seem not to make a clinical difference and both are good options.
Mesh Placement andFixation Aspects
The mesh is placed taking care to completely cover the myopectineal orice. Once placed with caution not to have folds at any border, the decision of xation or not arises. Many xation options have been proposed in the history of TAPP technique; nonetheless, based on the available level of evidence, we can say that leaving the mesh without xation could be reasonable too as long as the following specica­tions are met: the defect is indirect, the defect is direct and small, or the defect is femoral [2628].
The xation options are invasive and noninvasive type. Invasive xation options include tackers, staples, and stitches. Noninvasive xation options for TAPP include vacuum suction [29] and glue-like options available today, brin and cyanoacrylate, the latter not yet commercially available in the USA but available in other countries. Both are suitable for TAPP repair.
One of the xation options for TAPP, staples (i.e., Endo Hernia, by Medtronic), has mostly been abandoned by surgeons due to increased pain and risk of nerve entrapment. Tackers are another invasive option for TAPP and are preferred by some surgeons for mesh xation, and many use them selectively for larger hernias, spe­cially big direct defects. If tackers are chosen, there are many design congurations (helical and not helical) made in two types of material (permanent and absorbable) both used with quite similar clinical success in TAPP.The safest place to tack is in the Cooper’s ligament over the pubic bone, in its mid- to external/lateral area, avoid­ing the region where the corona mortis is found.
Where to re the tacker—aside from Cooper’s ligament—remains open to dis­cussion, but never under an imaginary line below the Cooper’s ligament, and never in the triangle of doom due to risk of neurovascular damage [30]. It is helpful to use counterpressure on the abdominal wall against the tip of the tacking device when applying tacks in the soft tissue (Fig.30.6).
Noninvasive xation of the mesh for TAPP includes glue-like materials. In the USA brin glue is the most readily available (though expensive) option. In most other countries, cyanoacrylate is the adhesive option that is available and is quite inexpensive. Besides the fact that these glue-like materials show overall
30 MIS Techniques: Lap TAPP andrTAPP
Fig. 30.6 Places not to re tackers or staples
421
complications and recurrences not signicantly different in comparison to conven­tional tacker or suture xation, both seem to offer somehow less painful results [3133].
For a TAPP technique, these glue-like products are instilled through a cannula inserted through one trocar, parallel to the trocar, or simply percutaneously drop by drop over the points where xation is desired or through a spraying device [34]. Fixation by suturing can be done with similar considerations for safety as in the other methods. The added effort time needed for this task is probably the main rea­son it is being avoided by many surgeons.
Because all invasive xation methods raise the concern of neurovascular dam­age, interest does exist for self-xating meshes. Some are already being used in TAPP cases in many places worldwide. This self-xating mesh is simply placed as a conventional mesh, with the advantage of saving time but not necessarily costs. Long-term data is yet needed for comparison.
The nal step in the TAPP technique is the closure of peritoneal ap, and there are several ways described in almost 25years of TAPP history: closure by conven­tional running suture, closure by interrupted sutures, closure by tackers, closure by staples, and closure by glue-like products. Recent efforts have been made to nd whether or not it is fully necessary to close the peritoneal ap in TAPP by any of the listed means, and although preliminary results show that it may also be possible to leave the ap without closure [35], further clinical research about this is needed, being consequently the thorough closure of peritoneal incision and any big perito­neal tear the only real and formal recommendation [36]. Considering the recent onset of litigation worldwide and specially in the USA regarding mesh, many now avoid intraperitoneal mesh placement or exposure.
Probably worth mentioning—but not classically part of the TAPP technique— might be the aspiration of remanent preperitoneal gas once the ap is closed, which has been proposed as a way to reduce urinary retention and to serve as another xat­ing mode [37]. It can be done by inserting a cannula/aspirator through the already
422
closed peritoneal opening until the remanent CO2 is aspirated and deation of the bulged peritoneum is completed [29] which may also serve to xate the mesh in place, as previously cited.
Finally, drains are never recommended in TAPP inguinal hernia repairs. Hemostasis should be assured before placing the mesh and before closing the peri­toneal ap.
E. Inga-Zapata and F. García
Failure oftheTAPP: Recurrence
A number of complications could arise from the TAPP technique including vascu­lar, visceral organ, and nerve injuries. They are rare, and recurrence is the most frequent. Early in the history of laparoscopic TAPP repair, recurrences were reported and attributed to poor technique [38].
After 25years of the laparoscopic TAPP approach, the same reasons for failure have been pointed out by almost every publication and surgical academic society worldwide: inadequate size of the mesh, poor closure of the peritoneal ap, and inadequate dissection for creation of the pocket. These are often related to an incom­plete knowledge of the anatomy of the region due to insufcient training or inexperience.
Several recommendations can be made from accumulated worldwide experience:
1. Standardize your own steps for the technique.
2. Plan to dissect until nding all the landmarks and obtaining the CVMPO.
3. Proceed with very gentle movements in order to avoid bleeding, and then you
will always have a clear view of every structure in the operative eld.
4. Use a 15×10cm mesh (minimum) to cover the MPO with broad overlap.
5. Fixate the mesh in every case of big direct hernias.
6. Meticulously close the peritoneum.

Robotic TAPP (rTAPP)

Performance of TAPP robotically (rTAPP) has been adopted by many surgeons. Benets include tridimensional high-denition (3D HD) vision, wristed instru­ments with greater ease of suturing, and improved ergonomics for the surgeon. Lower pain scores have also been reported by some as well as improved outcomes and lower complication rates for obese patients [39]. When performed well, recur­rence rates should be equivalent between open, laparoscopic, and robotic repairs.

Preoperative Considerations

Patients undergoing rTAPP should be able to undergo general anesthesia. Relative contraindications might be prior to retropubic dissection, radiation, a history of pel­vic trauma, or infections. Unlike laparoscopic TAPP technique, there is a shorter
30 MIS Techniques: Lap TAPP andrTAPP
423
learning curve to adoption of rTAPP, probably because surgeons utilize previously acquired laparoscopic expertise. Familiarity with the anatomy of the groin region, the anterior abdominal wall, and how the preperitoneal space transitions to the ret­roperitoneal space are critical both for low recurrence rates and avoidance of com­plications. Anatomy, dissection, mesh placement, and peritoneal closure have been discussed in the preceding section.
How robotic surgery might inuence the TAPP technique becomes evident when it comes to one of the pending issues of laparoscopic TAPP repair: what to do with large direct defects. The skills needed to close them as in open surgery are not an easy task by pure laparoscopy, but thanks to the 7 degree of wrist movements that robotics offers, some now nally advocate closure of these defects with far more precision than laparoscopy [40, 41].

Operative Setup

For inguinal hernias with both the DaVinci-Si and DaVinci-Xi systems, three arms are typically used. For both systems the peritoneal cavity can be accessed with an optical port, Veress technique or via an open Hasson-type entry. An 8.5mm camera port at the umbilicus (or supraumbilical 15cm from the pubis in patients of short stature) is common. Instrument ports are placed 8–10cm lateral and 4–6cm cepha­lad to the camera port bilaterally. Before docking, the patient is positioned supine with arms tucked and in 20° Trendelenburg. A special bed (Trumpf 7000 dV) is available for the DaVinci robot that allows for synchronized simultaneous move­ment of the DaVinci-Xi robotic arms with the patient table. In the absence of this, table movement can only be done while undocked (Fig.30.7).
Numerous instruments are available for performing robotic TAPP hernia repairs. However, each new instrument incurs a cost. Minimizing the number of instruments results in lower cost.
Some frequently used instruments include a grasper (Cadiere forceps, fenes­trated bipolar, or ProGrasp), cautery (hot scissors or hook bovie), and a sewing instrument, large needle driver, or mega suture cut. Surgeon experience and prefer­ence will guide choice. For the DaVinci-Si system, more time and attention has to be paid to the table used and to patient cart positioning and docking. For unilateral hernias the patient cart can be docked 45° over the side of the hernia, and this can also be used for bilateral hernias. However, for bilateral hernias some surgeons pre­fer pelvic docking which can also improve arm reach for very obese patients.
TAPP withother Surgical Robots
It is important to note that this brief reference to the rTAPP technique is based on the DaVinci robot (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.). There is another surgical robot used in Europe (Senhance, by TransEnterix, Inc.), which has recently gotten FDA clearance for the American market and similar allowance in some Asian countries as well. This new robot has different features and technical considerations when compared
424
E. Inga-Zapata and F. García
Fig. 30.7 Robotic TAPP setup (DaVinci-Si)
to the DaVinci robot models, essentially technically conceptualized in conventional laparoscopy. The rTAPP procedure has been successfully accomplished with the Senhance robot in Europe, but no large series has yet formally been reported to date. Other robotic platforms, multiport, and some of them single port will be soon avail­able. It remains to be seen how robotic surgery evolves.
Conclusion
After a quarter century, the TAPP technique has kept its essence: tackling the
problem posteriorly, at its origin. The evolution of the TAPP technique has led to
technical recommendations to reduce complication and recurrence rates. While
data from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative accrues, the bene-
ts of laparoscopic vs. robotic TAPP will be better dened for both patients and
surgeons, never forgetting that robotic costs need to approximate laparoscopic
costs to foster wider adoption of robotic TAPP.
30 MIS Techniques: Lap TAPP andrTAPP
425

References

1. Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Mahajna A. Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia
repair: lessons learned from 3,100 hernia repairs over 15 years. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(3):482–6.
2. Hussain A, Nicholls J, El-Hasani S.Technical tips following more than 2000 transabdomi-
nal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair of the groin hernia. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2010;20(6):384–8.
3. Foro Hernia SoHAH (Sociedad Hispanoamericana de Hernia) https://www.facebook.com/
groups/388472254649712/.
4. IHC—International Hernia Collaboration https://www.facebook.com/groups/herniacollab/.
5. Witzel K, Weitzendorfer M.If time matters: a multicenter review of minimally-invasive hernia
repair in 7176 cases. Minerva Chir. 2017;72(5):365–7.
6. Bracale U, Sciuto A, Andreuccetti J, Merola G, Pecchia L, Melillo P, Pignata G.Laparoscopic
recurrent inguinal hernia repair during the learning curve: it can be done? Ann Ital Chir. 2017;88:62–6.
7. Bökeler U, Schwarz J, Bittner R, Zacheja S, Smaxwil C.Teaching and training in laparoscopic
inguinal hernia repair (TAPP): impact of the learning curve on patient outcome. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(8):2886–93.
8. Carvalho GL, Loureiro MP, Bonin EA, Claus CP, Silva FW, Cury AM, Fernandes
FA.Minilaparoscopic technique for inguinal hernia repair combining transabdominal pre­peritoneal and totally extraperitoneal approaches. JSLS. 2012;16(4):569–75.
9. Mizota T, Watanabe Y, Madani A, Takemoto N, Yamada H, Poudel S, Miyasaka Y, Kurashima
Y.Liquid-injection for preperitoneal dissection of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) ingui­nal [corrected] hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(3):516–20.
10. Tong YS, Wu CC, Bai CH, Lee HC, Liang HH, Kuo LJ, Wei PL, Tam KW.Effect of extra-
peritoneal bupivacaine analgesia in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia. 2014;18(2):177–83.
11. D’Hondt M, Nuytens F, Yoshihara E, Adriaens E, Vansteenkiste F, Pottel H.Totally extraperi-
toneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using a self-expanding nitinol framed hernia repair device: a prospective case series. Int J Surg. 2017;40:139–44.
12. Zacharoulis D, Fafoulakis F, Baloyiannis I, Sioka E, Georgopoulou S, Pratsas C, Hantzi E,
Tzovaras G.Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia under spinal anesthesia: a pilot study. Am J Surg. 2009;198(3):456–9.
13. Tzovaras G, Symeonidis D, Koukoulis G, Baloyiannis I, Georgopoulou S, Pratsas C,
Zacharoulis D. Long-term results after laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair under spinal anesthesia. Hernia. 2012;16(6):641–5.
14. Frezza EE, Ferzli G. Local and general anesthesia in the laparoscopic preperitoneal hernia
repair. JSLS. 2000;4(3):221–4.
15. Soper N.Mastery of endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins; 2009.
16. Memon MA, Fitzgibbons RJ. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: transabdominal preperi-
toneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP). In: Scott-Conner CE, editor. The SAGES manual. NewYork: Springer; 2006.
17. Talar Tejirian (International Hernia Collaboration—Poll): “Never use a Foley because it’s sim-
ply not necessary so long as patient voids pre-op” and “Selectively use a foley for large incar­cerated hernias or redo hernias”. 23 Oct 2017, 11:10 am. IHC—Facebook Post.
18. Shabino PJ, Greenberg JA. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: transabdominal preperito-
neal (TAPP) approach. In: Chen H, editor. Illustrative handbook of general surgery. Cham: Springer; 2016.
19. Inga-Zapata, Edmundo (International Hernia Collaboration—Closed Group): “Humidied
gauzes are way more effective than dry gauzes when it comes to clear the tissue planes in TAPP”. 03 Nov 2017 21:02 hrs—Facebook Post.
426
20. Inga-Zapata, Edmundo (Foro Hernia SoHah—Closed Group): “La gasa húmeda funciona
muchísimo mejor que una gasa seca cuando se trata de aclarar la visión para ver bien los pla­nos de tejido y las estructuras”. 03 Nov 2017 21:14 hrs—Facebook Post.
21. Leroy J. Laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. [ONLINE]. 2003. http://www.websurg.
com/doi-vd01en1247e.htm. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.
22. Strasberg SM.A perspective on the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. 2017;2:91.
23. Daes J, Felix E.Critical view of the myopectineal orice. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):e1–2.
24. Ates M, Kinaci E, Kose E, Soyer V, Sarici B, Cuglan S, Korkmaz F, Dirican A.Corona mortis:
invivo anatomical knowledge and the risk of injury in totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2016;20(5):659–65.
25. Kinaci E, Ates M, Dirican A, Ozgor D. Low pressure is necessary to view and to protect
corona mortis during totally extraperitoneal hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(12):978–84.
26. Taylor C, Layani L, Liew V, Ghusn M, Crampton N, White S.Laparoscopic inguinal hernia
repair without mesh xation, early results of a large randomised clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(3):757–62.
27. Meyer A, Dulucq JL, Mahajna A. Laparoscopic hernia repair: nonxation mesh is feasibly?
Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2013;26(1):27–30.
28. Mayer F, Niebuhr H, Lechner M, Dinnewitzer A, Köhler G, Hukauf M, Fortelny RH, Bittner R,
Köckerling F.When is mesh xation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair neces­sary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(10):4363–71.
29. Zhang G, Zhang X, Zhan H, Sanyuan H. Vacuum suction xation versus staple xation in
TAPP laparoscopic hernia repair: introduction of a new technique for mesh xation. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:114.
30. Eubanks S, Newman L, Goehring L, Lucas GW, Adams CP, Mason E, Duncan T.Meralgia
paresthetica: a complication of laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1993;3(5):381–5. (ISSN: 1051-7200).
31. Subwongcharoen S, Ruksakul K. A randomized controlled trial of staple xation versus
N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate xation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Med Assoc Thai. 2013;96(Suppl 3):S8–13.
32. Antoniou SA, Köhler G, Antoniou GA, Muysoms FE, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-
analysis of randomized trials comparing nonpenetrating vs mechanical mesh xation in lapa­roscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;211(1):239–249.e2.
33. Shen YM, Liu YT, Chen J, Sun L.Efcacy and safety of NBCA (n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate)
medical adhesive for patch xation in totally extraperitoneal prosthesis (TEP): a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(4):680–6.
34. Li J, Ji Z, Zhang W.Staple xation against adhesive xation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia
repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015;25(6):471–7.
35. Kane ED, Leduc M, Schlosser K, Parentela N, Wilson D, Romanelli JR.Comparison of perito-
neal closure versus non-closure in laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with coated mesh. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):627–37.
36. Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, Bansal V, Bingener J, Bisgaard T, Buhck H, Dudai
M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH, Grimes KL, Klinge U, Koeckerling F, Kumar S, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P.Update of guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP) and endo­scopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia (International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc. 2015;29(2):289–321.
37. Shen Q, Yao Q. Technical points of the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP)
approach in inguinal hernia repair. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. 2017;2:11.
38. Felix E, Scott S, Crafton B, Geis P, Duncan T, Sewell R, McKernan B.Causes of recurrence
after laparoscopic hernioplasty. A multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 1998;12(3):226–31.
E. Inga-Zapata and F. García
30 MIS Techniques: Lap TAPP andrTAPP
39. Kolachalam R, Dickens E, D’Amico L, Richardson C, Rabaza J, Gamagami R, Gonzalez
A. Early outcomes of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a multi­institutional, retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(1):229–35.
40. Li J, Zhang W.Closure of a direct inguinal hernia defect in laparoscopic repair with barbed
suture: a simple method to prevent seroma formation? Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):1082–6.
41. Waite KE, Herman MA, Doyle PJ.Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal
preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(3):239–44.
427
MIS vs. Open Inguinal Hernia forUncomplicated Unilateral Hernia
FadiBalla andAnkitD.Patel

Introduction

An inguinal hernia is one of the most commonly encountered general surgical pathologies in the world. Approximately 27% of males and 3% of females will develop one in their lifetime [1]. The surgical treatment for inguinal hernias contin­ues to evolve, with open herniorrhaphy with tension-free mesh repair (TFR) as the current gold standard across the world. With laparoscopy and now robotic surgery, minimally invasive methods have been accepted as suitable alternatives to the open repair. However, in the past, these minimally invasive methods were primarily reserved for recurrent hernias and bilateral hernias since they offered two unique benets—working in previously unviolated anatomic planes and visualization of both inguinal areas in the same procedure. Unfortunately, more expensive equip­ment is needed for minimally invasive methods and may not be universally avail­able. As a result, debate continues over the optimal repair method for uncomplicated unilateral inguinal hernias. In experienced hands, recurrence rates are similar in both open and laparoscopic repair (<2%) [2]. Therefore, the decision-making pro­cess has shifted toward consideration of other post-procedural outcomes such as postoperative pain, time to return to daily activities, and early and late complica­tions. Previous studies have shown that inexperience with laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications [3, 4]. We aim to evaluate these factors and provide recommendations for the practicing general surgeon based on current and practical data.
31
F. Balla Department of Surgery, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
A. D. Patel ( Division of General and GI Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory Bariatric Center, Emory Saint Joseph Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA e-mail: Apatel7@emory.edu
© Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) 2019 S. S. Davis Jr. et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Hernia Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78411-3_31
*)
429
430
F. Balla and A. D. Patel

Open Repair

Inguinal hernias have been recognized in medical writings as early as 1550 BC in the Papyrus Ebers. These writings describe both the appearance of inguinal hernia as well as rudimentary treatments. Greco-Roman scholars, including most notably Galen, began to lay the foundation for understanding the pathogenesis and treat­ment of hernia. Galen described the origin of hernias as rupture of the peritoneum and overstretching of the overlying fascia and muscles. These ancient scholars understood and described the importance of hernia sac ligation, preservation of the testis, and hemostasis which essentially laid the foundation of modern hernia repair concepts [5]. Edoardo Bassini is generally recognized as the rst of many pioneers in modern hernia repair in the late 1800s. He was the rst surgeon to prospectively follow his patients for postoperative outcomes including recurrence and infection. Over 5years, he was able to prospectively gather data on 216 total patients [5]. Using the Bassini technique of “triple layer” closure (transversalis fascia, transver­sus abdominis muscle, and internal oblique muscle) to the inguinal ligament, he was able to achieve historically low recurrence rates (4%) and infection rates (5%). Over the next 100years, several other methods of inguinal hernia repair were pioneered, but all were founded on the basis of tension-free repair using natural tissue planes. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the advent of synthetic mesh changed the world of hernia repair immensely. Lichtenstein and colleagues popularized the routine use of mesh for tension-free repair of both complicated and uncomplicated hernias [6]. This has been shown in numerous studies to be superior to tissue repair with regard to most measurable data. It should be noted, however, that tissue repair at specialty centers such as the Shouldice Institute may offer similar recurrence rates to TFR [7].
The Lichtenstein repair is considered the gold standard TFR.A 5–6cm skin inci­sion starting from the pubic tubercle extending laterally following Langer’s line should provide adequate exposure to both the pubic tubercle and internal ring. Sharp dissection is carried down through Scarpa’s fascia to the external oblique aponeuro­sis. The external oblique aponeurosis is opened along the direction of its bers and divided through the external inguinal ring. The hernia sac is then identied, sepa­rated from the cord structures (in the case of an indirect hernia), and reduced into the abdominal cavity along with its contents. Usually a polypropylene mesh is trimmed to cover the oor of the inguinal oor, covering both indirect and direct hernia defects. The mesh is sutured to the anterior rectus sheath 2cm medial to the pubic tubercle, and this suture is then continued laterally securing the caudal edge of the prosthesis to either side of the pubic tubercle and the inguinal ligament to the level of the internal ring. A slit is then made at the lateral end of the mesh creating two tails. The tails are passed around the spermatic cord recreating the internal ring. The tails are sewn together allowing for adequate space for the passage of the sper­matic cord. The external oblique aponeurosis is then closed in a running fashion, followed by the subcutaneous tissue.
Multiple other TFR techniques are described with excellent results and are described in detail elsewhere in this manual. For the purposes of this chapter, we will consider all TFR mesh-based repairs together when compared to minimally invasive techniques.