Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byTheodore Harrington Modified over 8 years ago
1
Pediatric Inguinal Hernia Repair: The Controversies Emanuel Nearing, II, MD
2
Why does it matter? Inguinal hernias are common 3-5% in term infants 13% in infants born <33 weeks Optimal timing for repair remains debatable Multiple techniques for repair Open Laparoscopic Combination of both
3
The basics Goal of pediatric inguinal hernia repair is complete ligation of patent processus vaginalis Normally, obliteration occurs in “the last weeks of gestation” Left processus closes prior to the right Right side hernias more common Failure to close leads to hernia and hydrocele
4
Why do repairs fail? Ligation of sac not high enough Injury to the floor of inguinal canal Failure to close inguinal ring (girls) Wound infections or hematoma
5
Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair Benefits Excellent visualization Minimal dissection Better cosmesis Faster recovery? Less post operative pain Simultaneous control of contralateral patent processes vaginalis Faster if contralateral side repaired
6
Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair Drawbacks Cost Not gold standard Infertility risk Length of surgery? 8 papers reviewed and this is the extent of the cons!
7
Open Inguinal Herniorrhaphy Gold standard Most commonly performed 79% of surgeons favor this approach for first time, unilateral hernias Only 17% of surgeons reported favoring laparoscopic approach for first time, unilateral hernias
8
Yang et al. (2011) Meta analysis of Open versus Lap (7 studies) 3 RCTs and 4 OCSs (1543 patients) Findings--there were no statistical differences: Operative time (with experienced surgeons) Hospital stay Time to resume full activity Recurrence Post operative CMIH Complications Infertility not addressed
9
Possible in premature neonates! Does earlier repair favor open technique? Chan et al. (2013): 79 premature neonates Patients born prior to 37 weeks Laparoscopic repair offered at 2.5 kg One patient with incarceration (didn’t convert to open) No incidents of apnea
10
Contralateral Evaluation What do we do about patients presenting with unilateral hernia? Is there a Contralateral Patent Processus Vaginalis (CPPV)? Development of Contralateral Metachronous Inguinal Hernia (CMIH)?
11
Contralateral Patent Processus Vaginalis (CPPV) Open tunnel without identifiable termination to the peritoneal sac in the inguinal canal Fear that this will lead to CMIH Risk of incarceration Evaluation via laparoscopy: transumbilical versus transinguinal Does every CPPV become a clinically apparent hernia? Risks of evaluation: testicular atrophy, vas deferens injury, even infertility
12
CPPV cont. Clinically undetected CPPV incidence: 20-50% 7% risk of hernia development
13
Contralateral Metachronous Inguinal Hernia (CMIH) Definition varies: Clinically detected inguinal hernia on the side with negative findings of CPPV on initial laparoscopy and subsequent confirmation of patent processus vaginalis in second surgery Open tunnel into the contralateral inguinal region Swelling or palpable crepitus under pneumoperitoneum pressure in the contralateral groin or scrotum Bubbles or fluid expressed by palpation over the contralateral inguinal canal o scrotum Incidence: 2.5% of children following negative evaluation for CPPV by transingunal laparoscopy
14
Evaluation Laparoscopic evaluation for CPPV in 1992 via separate umbilical incision during open repair Transinguinal approach developed shortly afterward Literature “favors” transinguinal laparoscopy for CPPV investigation Transumbilical “has become routine” during laparoscopic repair of clinically apparent unilateral hernias
15
Evaluation continued Transumbilical laparoscopy: Sensitive (99.4%) and specific (99.5%) Zhong (2013) Meta Analysis of 23 studies: 13 studies favored inguinal approach 6 studies favored laparoscopic approach 4 combined approach Various visible angle laparoscopes (30º – 120º and flexible scopes) Pneumoperitoneum pressure 6-15 mm Hg
16
Evaluation continued Umbilical laparoscopy: better visualization Transinguinal Higher incidence when higher angle scope used Lower incidence with pneumoperitoneum pressure of >8 mm Hg
17
Bigger Question! What does a CPPV mean clinically? Natural history is still unknown 1-31% range for CMIH in literature Does this warrant evaluation at time of initial surgery? The jury is still out…
18
Issues related to timing of IH repair Prematurity Risk of incarceration or strangulation Development of apnea Repair prior to discharge from NICU versus electively as outpatient Balance potential risks of hernia with anesthetic and technical risks
19
Early versus late repair Why is there debate? No consensus in the literature regarding optimal timing in asymptomatic patients Studies providing insight dated
20
Prematurity and Hernia Estimated incidence of 13% in infants born <32 weeks, and 30% in infants born <1 kg Risks: Male sex Prolonged mechanical ventilation Lower gestational age Extremely low birth weight
21
Prematurity and Hernia Rate of incarceration (Lautz, 2011) 14.6% prior to 1 month 11.9 at 1-2 months 15.6% at 2-3 months 18.2% for repair after 3 months of life Repair after 40 weeks post conception was associated with a 2 fold risk of incarceration (20.6%) compared with repair between 36-40 weeks (9%) Repair before 36 weeks (11.3%)
22
Prematurity Within the initial hospitalization, interval from birth to repair had no significant bearing on the risk of incarceration Delay past 40 weeks post conceptual age increases the risk 2 fold Survey by American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Surgery: 63% would perform inguinal herniorrhaphy just before discharge from NICU
23
Post conception age (PCA) Trigger for admission for observation Risk of apnea nearly absent by 44 weeks PCA (does risk extend out to 60 weeks?) Cote et al. (1995) incidence of apnea significantly reduced at 52-55 weeks and was <1% at 54 weeks PCA
24
Incarceration Will occur in 15-35% of all infants <1 year of age Risk for individual patient is 4.6% No question as to potential severity here!
25
Apnea Apnea rate in former premature infants as high as 49% (5% more realistic?) 2.6% risk in full term infants Inversely related to gestational age and PCA Risk continued at home
26
Apnea cont. Multiple definitions (6 in my review) Time between breaths from 10-20 secs Oxygen desaturations Visual absence of respiration Decreased risk with modern anesthetic agents
27
Apnea cont. High percentage of premature infants have a rocky course in recovery but that doesn’t translate into overnight events Longer PACU monitoring? Would 4-6 hrs (up to 12 hrs) be sufficient Ozdemir found mean time to apnea event <45 weeks: 8.6 hrs >45 weeks: 4 hrs Laituri (2011) had no apnea events in 300+ pts over 45 weeks
28
Lee et al. (2010) 172 patients mean age 30.7 weeks No patient with known inguinal hernia incarcerated prior to elective repair 35 discharged from NICU with known hernia 127 repaired electively as outpatient Longer overall hospitalization in patients who had hernia repair prior to discharge from NICU 13 pts required prolonged intubation >48 hrs Former premature infants with post conception age between 41-46 weeks can safely undergo outpatient herniorrhaphy if there is no history of lung disease or apnea
29
Ozdemir (2013) May be able to reduce timing of surgery as outpatient down to PCA of 45 weeks Book the patient as first case so that there can be 6 hrs of PACU monitoring prior to discharge
30
Conclusion Laparoscopic hernia repair is safe I would not specifically look for CPPV: just deal with the CMIH if and when it develops The debate will continue! I have more questions than when I started…
31
Citations Chan, I., et al. (2013). Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair in Premature Neonates: Is It Safe? Pediatric Surgery International, 29:327-330. Esposito, C., et al. (2012). Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair in Premature Babies Weighing 3 kg or Less. Pediatric Surgery International, 28:989-992. Laituri, C., et al. ( 2012). Overnight Observation in Former Premature Infants Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Repair. Journal of Pediatric Surgery,2012; 47: 217-220. Lautz, T., Raval, M., et al. (2011). Does Timing Matter? A National Perspective on the Risk of Incarceration in Premature Neonates with Inguinal Hernia. The Journal of Pediatrics, 158 (4)573-577. Lee, S., Gleason, J., et al. ( 2011). A Critical Review of Premature Infants with Inguinal Hernias: Optimal timing of repair, incarceration risk, and postoperative apnea. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 2011; 46: 217-220. Ozdemir, T., Arikan, A. (2013). Postoperative Apnea After Inguinal Hernia Repair in Formerly Premature Infants: impacts of gestational age, postconceptional age and comorbidities. Pediatric Surgery International, 29:801-804. Shalaby, R., et al. (2012). Laparoscopic Hernia Repair versus open Herniotomy in Children: A Controlled Randomised Study. Minimally Invasive Surgery, 2012; 2012:484135. Tam, Y., et al. ( 2012). Simple maneuvers to reduce the incidence of false-negative findings for contralateral patent processus vaginalis during laparoscopic hernia repair in children: a comparitive study between 2 cohorts. Journal of Pediatric Surgery,2013; 48: 826-829. Tam, Y., et al. ( 2014). Unexpected Metachronous Hernia Development in Children Following Laparoscopic Unilateral Hernia Repair with Negative Evaluation for Contralateral Patent Processus Vaginalis. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques, 24 (2): 287-290 Wang, K. (2012)Assessment and Management of Inguinal Hernia in Infants. American Acadamy of Pediatrics, 130:768-773. Yang, C., et al. (2011). Laparoscopic vs Open Herniorrhaphy in the Management of Pediatric Inguinal Hernia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 46: 1824-1834. Zani, A., et al. (2013). Management of Pediatric Inguinal Hernias in the Era of Laparoscopy: Results of an International Survey. Eur J Pediarti Surg, 2014; 24:9-13. Zhong, H., Wang, F. ( 2014). Contralateram Metachronous Hernia Following Negative Laparoscopic Evaluation for Contralateral Patent Processus Vaginalis: A meta-analysis. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques, 24 (2): 111-116.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.