Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery. Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons. Funding: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). This long-term study did not receive funding.</p

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery.Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons.</p

Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs lichtenstein repair: A long-term follow-up study

Hypothesis: Mesh repair is generally preferred for surgical correction of inguinal hernia, although the merits of endoscopic techniques over open surgery are still debated. Herein, minimally invasive total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty (TEP) was compared with Lichtenstein repair to determine if one is associated with less postoperative pain, hypoesthesia, and hernia recurrence. Design: Prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial. Setting: Academic research. Patients: Six hundred sixty patients were randomized to TEP or Lichtenstein repair. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary end points were hernia recurrence, operative complications, operating time, length of hospital stay, time to complete recovery, quality of life, chronic pain, and operative costs. Results: At 5 years after surgery, TEP was associated with less chronic pain (P=.004). Impairment of inguinal sensibility was less frequently seen after TEP vs Lichtenstein repair (1% vs 22%, P<.001). Operative complications were more frequent after TEP vs Lichtenstein repair (6% vs 2%, P<.001), while no difference was noted in length of hospital stay. After TEP, patients had faster time to return to daily activities (P<.002) and less absence from work (P=.001). Although operative costs were higher for TEP, total costs were comparable for the 2 procedures, as were overall hernia recurrences at 5 years after surgery. However, among experienced surgeons, significantly lower hernia recurrence rates were seen after TEP (P<.001). Conclusions: In the short term, TEP was associated with more operative complications, longer operating time, and higher operative costs; however, total costs were comparable for the 2 procedures. Chronic pain and impairment of inguinal sensibility were more frequent after Lichtenstein repair. Although overall hernia recurrence rates were comparable for both procedures, hernia recurrence rates among experienced surgeons were significantly lower after TEP. Patient satisfaction was also significantly higher

Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial

Background: Both mesh and suture repair are used for the treatment of umbilical hernias, but for smaller umbilical hernias (diameter 1–4 cm) there is little evidence whether mesh repair would be beneficial. In this study we aimed to investigate whether use of a mesh was better in reducing recurrence compared with suture repair for smaller umbilical hernias. Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled multicentre trial in 12 hospitals (nine in the Netherlands, two in Germany, and one in Italy). Eligible participants were adults aged at least 18 years with a primary umbilical hernia of diameter 1–4 cm, and were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively to either suture repair or mesh repair. In the first 3 years of the inclusion period, blocked randomisation (of non-specified size) was achieved by an envelope randomisation system; after this time computer-generated randomisation was introduced. Patients, investigators, and analysts were masked to the allocated treatment, and participants were stratified by hernia size (1–2 cm and >2–4 cm). At study initiation, all surgeons were invited to training sessions to ensure they used the same standardised techniques for suture repair or mesh repair. Patients underwent physical examinations at 2 weeks, and 3, 12, and 24–30 months after the operation. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrences of the umbilical hernia after 24 months assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population by physical examination and, in case of any doubt, abdominal ultrasound. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00789230. Findings: Between June 21, 2006, and April 16, 2014, we randomly assigned 300 patients, 150 to mesh repair and 150 to suture repair. The median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 15·5–33·4). After a maximum follow-up of 30 months, there were fewer recurrences in the mesh group than in the suture group (six [4%] in 146 patients vs 17 [12%] in 138 patients; 2-year actuarial estimates of recurrence 3·6% [95% CI 1·4–9·4] vs 11·4% (6·8–18·9); p=0·01, hazard ratio 0·31, 95% CI 0·12–0·80, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 12·8). The most common postoperative complications were seroma (one [<1%] in the suture group vs five [3%] in the mesh group), haematoma (two [1%] vs three [2%]), and wound infection (one [<1%] vs three [2%]). There were no anaesthetic complications or postoperative deaths. Interpretation: This is the first study showing high level evidence for mesh repair in patients with small hernias of diameter 1–4 cm. Hence we suggest mesh repair should be used for operations on all patients with an umbilical hernia of this size. Funding: Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial

Both mesh and suture repair are used for the treatment of umbilical hernias, but for smaller umbilical hernias (diameter 1-4 cm) there is little evidence whether mesh repair would be beneficial. In this study we aimed to investigate whether use of a mesh was better in reducing recurrence compared with suture repair for smaller umbilical hernias. We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled multicentre trial in 12 hospitals (nine in the Netherlands, two in Germany, and one in Italy). Eligible participants were adults aged at least 18 years with a primary umbilical hernia of diameter 1-4 cm, and were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively to either suture repair or mesh repair. In the first 3 years of the inclusion period, blocked randomisation (of non-specified size) was achieved by an envelope randomisation system; after this time computer-generated randomisation was introduced. Patients, investigators, and analysts were masked to the allocated treatment, and participants were stratified by hernia size (1-2 cm and >2-4 cm). At study initiation, all surgeons were invited to training sessions to ensure they used the same standardised techniques for suture repair or mesh repair. Patients underwent physical examinations at 2 weeks, and 3, 12, and 24-30 months after the operation. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrences of the umbilical hernia after 24 months assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population by physical examination and, in case of any doubt, abdominal ultrasound. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00789230. Between June 21, 2006, and April 16, 2014, we randomly assigned 300 patients, 150 to mesh repair and 150 to suture repair. The median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 15·5-33·4). After a maximum follow-up of 30 months, there were fewer recurrences in the mesh group than in the suture group (six [4%] in 146 patients vs 17 [12%] in 138 patients; 2-year actuarial estimates of recurrence 3·6% [95% CI 1·4-9·4] vs 11·4% (6·8-18·9); p=0·01, hazard ratio 0·31, 95% CI 0·12-0·80, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 12·8). The most common postoperative complications were seroma (one [ <1%] in the suture group vs five [3%] in the mesh group), haematoma (two [1%] vs three [2%]), and wound infection (one [ <1%] vs three [2%]). There were no anaesthetic complications or postoperative deaths. This is the first study showing high level evidence for mesh repair in patients with small hernias of diameter 1-4 cm. Hence we suggest mesh repair should be used for operations on all patients with an umbilical hernia of this size. Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherland

Watchful Waiting Versus Surgery of Mildly Symptomatic or Asymptomatic Inguinal Hernia in Men Aged 50 Years and Older: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE:: To compare if watchful waiting is noninferior to elective repair in men aged 50 years and older with mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia. BACKGROUND:: The role of watchful waiting in older male patients with mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia is still not well-established. METHODS:: In this noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned men aged 50 years and older with mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia to either elective inguinal hernia repair or watchful waiting. Primary endpoint was the mean difference in a 4-point pain/discomfort score at 24 months of follow-up. Using a 0.20-point difference as a clinically relevant margin, it was hypothesized that watchful waiting was noninferior to elective repair. Secondary endpoints included quality of life, event-free survival, and crossover rates. RESULTS:: Between January 2006 and August 2012, 528 patients were enrolled, of whom 496 met the inclusion criteria: 234 were assigned to elective repair and 262 to watchful waiting. The mean pain/discomfort score at 24 months was 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.41)] in the elective repair group and 0.58 (95% CI 0.52–0.64) in the watchful waiting group. The difference of these means (MD) was −0.23 (95% CI −0.32 to −0.14). In the watchful waiting group, 93 patients (35·4%) eventually underwent elective surgery and 6 patients (2·3%) received emergent surgery for strangulation/incarceration. Postoperative complication rates and recurrence rates in these 99 operated individuals were comparable with individuals originally assigned to the elective repair group (8.1% vs 15.0%; P = 0.106, 7.1% vs 8.9%; P = 0.668, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:: Our data could not rule out a relevant difference in favor of elective repair with regard to the primary endpoint. Nevertheless, in view of all other findings, we feel that our results justify watchful waiting as a reasonable alternative compared with surgery in men aged 50 years and older