Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The analysis of the effects of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) and Liechtenstein surgery on the long-term quality of life in the treatment of inguinal hernia

Yıl 2026, Sayı: 19, - , 10.02.2026

Öz

Approximately 27-43% of men and 3-6% of women suffer from inguinal hernia during their lives. Surgery is the only viable treatment for inguinal hernia. As such, more than 20 million people worldwide are operated for inguinal hernia annually. Treatment indications and surgical procedures for inguinal hernia repair have always been discussed from a medical point of view. Along with the development of minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic methods are frequently used in inguinal hernia surgery. In this study, we aimed to evaluate how both open and laparoscopic tension-free mesh repair methods, both of which are widely used, affect the quality of life in the long-term post-operative period.
This study was designed as a retrospective survey. Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire was used as a postoperative quality of life (QoL) assessment scale. 69 (67.6%) of them underwent open surgery, while 33 (32.4%) of them underwent laparoscopic TEP. The demographic data, complications, SF-36 scale and chronic pain were evaluated, and no significant differences were found between the two groups.
In conclusion, our study compared laparoscopic and open methods and observed no significant differences between the long-term results in two different groups.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K. Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet. 2003;362(9395):1561–71.
  • 2. Fitzgibbons Jr RJ, Ramanan B, Arya S, Turner SA, Li X, Gibbs JO, et al. Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of a nonoperative strategy (watchful waiting) for men with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias. Ann Surg. 2013;258(3):508–15.
  • 3. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia. 2018;22:1–165.
  • 4. Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R. Compari-son of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2005;19:188–99.
  • 5. Xi S, Chen Z, Lu Q, Liu C, Xu L, Lu C, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in elderly patients: the experience of two comprehensive medical centers over 10 years. Hernia. 2024;1–9.
  • 6. Lee W, Chan C, Wang B. Recent advances in laparoscopic surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2013;6(1):1–8.
  • 7. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Morlacchi A, et al. Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia. 2019;23:473–84.
  • 8. Heniford BT, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, No-vitsky YW, Hope WW, Kercher KW. Comparison of generic versus specific quality-of-life scales for mesh hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(4):638–44.
  • 9. Nikkolo C, Lepner U. Chronic pain after open inguinal hernia repair. Postgrad Med. 2016;128(1):69–75.
  • 10. Haladu N, Alabi A, Brazzelli M, Imamura M, Ahmed I, Ramsay G, et al. Open versus laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(7):4685–700.
  • 11. Scheuermann U, Niebisch S, Lyros O, Jansen-Winkeln B, Gockel I. Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair–A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2017;17:1–10.
  • 12. Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, Jenkinson C, Co-ulter A. Quality of life in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1997;79(1):40.
  • 13. Isil RG, Avlanmis O. Effects of totally extraperitoneal and lichtenstein hernia repair on men’s sexual function and quality of life. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:1103–11.
  • 14. Bhattacharya K, Bhattacharya N. Can robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair ever replace Lichtenstein repair? Hernia. 2024;1–2.
  • 15. Myers E, Browne KM, Kavanagh DO, Hurley M. Laparoscopic (TEP) versus Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: a comparison of quality-of-life outcomes. World J Surg. 2010;34:3059–64.
  • 16. Campolina AG, Ciconelli RM. SF-36 and the development of new assessment tools for quality of life. Acta Reumatol Port. 2008;33(2):127–33.
  • 17. Castro GRA, Zilles A, Gazzola LD, Barros RB, Sadowski JA, Guetter CR. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: the long-term assessment of chronic pain and quality of life. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig (São Paulo). 2022;35:e1695.

İnguinal herni tedavisinde laparoskopik total ekstraperitoneal (TEP) ve Liechtenstein cerrahisinin uzun dönem yaşam kalitesine etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2026, Sayı: 19, - , 10.02.2026

Öz

Erkeklerin yaklaşık %27-43'ü ve kadınların %3-6'sı yaşamları boyunca kasık fıtığı sorunuyla karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Ameliyat, kasık fıtığı için tek geçerli tedavi yöntemidir. Bu nedenle, dünya çapında her yıl 20 milyondan fazla kişi kasık fıtığı nedeniyle ameliyat edilmektedir. Kasık fıtığı onarımında tedavi endikasyonları ve cerrahi prosedürler her zaman tıbbi bir bakış açısıyla tartışılmıştır. Minimal invaziv tekniklerin gelişmesiyle birlikte, kasık fıtığı cerrahisinde laparoskopik yöntemler sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, yaygın olarak kullanılan açık ve laparoskopik gerilimsiz yama onarım yöntemlerinin, her ikisi de ameliyat sonrası uzun dönemde yaşam kalitesini nasıl etkilediğini değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.
Bu çalışma retrospektif bir anket olarak tasarlanmıştır. Ameliyat sonrası yaşam kalitesi değerlendirme ölçeği olarak Kısa Form-36 (SF-36) anketi kullanılmıştır. 69 (%67,6) hastaya açık cerrahi uygulanırken, 33 (%32,4) hastaya laparoskopik TEP uygulandı. Demografik veriler, komplikasyonlar, SF-36 skalası ve kronik ağrı değerlendirildi ve iki grup arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı.
Sonuç olarak, çalışmamızda laparoskopik ve açık yöntemler karşılaştırılmış ve iki farklı grupta uzun dönem sonuçlar arasında anlamlı bir fark gözlenmemiştir.

Etik Beyan

Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi (KSÜ) Lokal Etik Değerlendirme Kurulu tarafından etik kurul onayı alınmıştır. (Tarih:05.04.2024, Oturum: 2024/03 , Karar no:04)

Destekleyen Kurum

Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi

Kaynakça

  • 1. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K. Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet. 2003;362(9395):1561–71.
  • 2. Fitzgibbons Jr RJ, Ramanan B, Arya S, Turner SA, Li X, Gibbs JO, et al. Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of a nonoperative strategy (watchful waiting) for men with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias. Ann Surg. 2013;258(3):508–15.
  • 3. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia. 2018;22:1–165.
  • 4. Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R. Compari-son of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2005;19:188–99.
  • 5. Xi S, Chen Z, Lu Q, Liu C, Xu L, Lu C, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in elderly patients: the experience of two comprehensive medical centers over 10 years. Hernia. 2024;1–9.
  • 6. Lee W, Chan C, Wang B. Recent advances in laparoscopic surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2013;6(1):1–8.
  • 7. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Morlacchi A, et al. Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia. 2019;23:473–84.
  • 8. Heniford BT, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, No-vitsky YW, Hope WW, Kercher KW. Comparison of generic versus specific quality-of-life scales for mesh hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(4):638–44.
  • 9. Nikkolo C, Lepner U. Chronic pain after open inguinal hernia repair. Postgrad Med. 2016;128(1):69–75.
  • 10. Haladu N, Alabi A, Brazzelli M, Imamura M, Ahmed I, Ramsay G, et al. Open versus laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(7):4685–700.
  • 11. Scheuermann U, Niebisch S, Lyros O, Jansen-Winkeln B, Gockel I. Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair–A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2017;17:1–10.
  • 12. Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, Jenkinson C, Co-ulter A. Quality of life in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1997;79(1):40.
  • 13. Isil RG, Avlanmis O. Effects of totally extraperitoneal and lichtenstein hernia repair on men’s sexual function and quality of life. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:1103–11.
  • 14. Bhattacharya K, Bhattacharya N. Can robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair ever replace Lichtenstein repair? Hernia. 2024;1–2.
  • 15. Myers E, Browne KM, Kavanagh DO, Hurley M. Laparoscopic (TEP) versus Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: a comparison of quality-of-life outcomes. World J Surg. 2010;34:3059–64.
  • 16. Campolina AG, Ciconelli RM. SF-36 and the development of new assessment tools for quality of life. Acta Reumatol Port. 2008;33(2):127–33.
  • 17. Castro GRA, Zilles A, Gazzola LD, Barros RB, Sadowski JA, Guetter CR. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: the long-term assessment of chronic pain and quality of life. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig (São Paulo). 2022;35:e1695.
Toplam 17 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Genel Cerrahi
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Ali İşler 0000-0001-5268-5783

Sezgin Topuz 0000-0002-6912-9721

Emrah Cengiz 0000-0003-2879-4976

Ali Özkömeç 0000-0002-1932-9032

İlhami Kale 0000-0002-1522-8361

Gönderilme Tarihi 23 Haziran 2025
Kabul Tarihi 27 Eylül 2025
Yayımlanma Tarihi 10 Şubat 2026
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2026 Sayı: 19

Kaynak Göster

Vancouver 1.İşler A, Topuz S, Cengiz E, Özkömeç A, Kale İ. The analysis of the effects of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) and Liechtenstein surgery on the long-term quality of life in the treatment of inguinal hernia. JSurgArts [Internet]. 01 Şubat 2026;(19). Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA44NM27YF

Amaç ve Kapsam

The aim of the Journal of Surgical Arts (Cerrahi Sanatlar Dergisi) is to publish high-quality research articles, review articles on current topics, and rare case reports in the field of surgery. Additionally, expert opinions, letters to the editor, scientific letters, and manuscripts on surgical techniques are accepted for publication, and various manuscripts on medicine and surgery history, ethics, surgical education, and forensic medicine fields are included in the journal.

Medicine, Surgery, Emergency medicine

The editorial and publication processes of the journal are shaped in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (doaj.org/bestpractice).

Originality, high scientific quality, and citation potential are the most important criteria for a manuscript to be accepted for publication. Manuscripts submitted for evaluation should not have been previously presented or already published in an electronic or printed medium. The submission of previous reviewer reports will expedite the evaluation process. Manuscripts that have been presented in a meeting should be submitted with detailed information on the organization, including the name, date, and location of the organization.

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Surgical Arts will go through a peer-review process. The Editor is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.

An approval of research protocols by the Ethics Committee in accordance with international agreements (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki âEthical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,â amended in October 2013, www.wma.net) is required for experimental, clinical, and drug studies and for some case reports.

Journal of Surgical Arts requires and encourages the authors and the individuals involved in the evaluation process of submitted manuscripts to disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interests, including financial, consultant, and institutional, that might lead to potential bias or a conflict of interest. Any financial grants or other support received for a submitted study from individuals or institutions should be disclosed to the Editorial Board.

When submitting a manuscript to Journal of Surgical Arts, authors accept to assign the copyright of their manuscript to the Journal. If rejected for publication, the copyright of the manuscript will be assigned back to the authors. When using previously published content, including figures, tables, or any other material in both print and electronic formats, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder. Legal, financial and criminal liabilities in this regard belong to the author(s).

Journal of Surgical Arts allows reuse and remixing of contents as category "CC BY" in accordance with a Creative Commons license or other types of license with similar conditions. Journal allows the readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allows readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.

The aim of the Journal of Surgical Arts (Cerrahi Sanatlar Dergisi) is to publish high-quality research articles, review articles on current topics, and rare case reports in the field of surgery. Additionally, expert opinions, letters to the editor, scientific letters, and manuscripts on surgical techniques are accepted for publication, and various manuscripts on medicine and surgery history, ethics, surgical education, and forensic medicine fields are included in the journal.

The journal doesn't have an article processing charge (APC) or any submission charges.

Baş Editör

Hepatopankreatobiliyer cerrahi, Bariatrik cerrahi ve Laparoskopik cerrahi

Genel Cerrahi

Alan Editörü

Radyoloji

Radyoloji ve Organ Görüntüleme

Gastroenterolojik cerrahi, Kolorektal cerrahi ve Bariatrik cerrahi 

Gastroenteroloji Cerrahisi

Hepatopankreatobiliyer cerrahi ve Transplantasyon

Gastroenteroloji Cerrahisi, Organ Nakli

Onkolojik Cerrahi

Cerrahi Onkoloji, Genel Cerrahi

Genel Cerrahi, Hepatopankreatobiliyer cerrahi ve Transplantasyon

Cerrahi Onkoloji, Gastroenteroloji Cerrahisi, Genel Cerrahi, Organ Nakli

Laparoskopik Cerrahi ve Robotik cerrahi

Genel Cerrahi

Genel Cerrahi, Laparoskopik cerrahi

Genel Cerrahi

Hepatopankreatobiliyer cerrahi, Kolorektal cerrahi ve Acil karın cerrahisi

Bilgi Güvenliği Yönetimi, Genel Cerrahi

Plastik ve Rekonstrüktif Cerrahi

El Cerrahisi, Plastik, Rekonstrüktif ve Estetik Cerrahi