Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Step-by-step guide to safe removal of pre-peritoneal inguinal mesh

  • 2018 SAGES Oral Dynamic
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Inguinal hernia repairs are among the most common operations performed worldwide. An increasing number is performed minimally invasively with mesh placed pre-peritoneally. Some situations may require mesh removal. This can be complex and challenging. We share our technique to remove pre-peritoneal mesh using a minimally invasive approach.

Methods

The multiple steps involved in robotic-assisted pre-peritoneal mesh removal are reviewed in detail, including preoperative planning, intraoperative positioning, review of anatomic landmarks, and systematic approach with technical tips to reduce complications.

Results

We provide an attached narrated video guide with a written summary to outline pre-peritoneal inguinal mesh removal. The steps are applicable to both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches. We present a video of the robotic-assisted approach. We prefer the robotic-assisted approach for most pre-peritoneal mesh removal based on results of our retrospective series of 26 patients undergoing 31 mesh removals. We noted that our robotic-assisted approach was more effective than the laparoscopic approach, with significantly less incidence of vascular injury (0 vs 5, p < 0.05) and less nerve (1 vs 4) and spermatic cord injuries (0 vs 1).

Conclusions

As pre-peritoneal inguinal mesh implantation becomes more popular, surgeons may be seeing more patients with complications who may require mesh removal. We provide a detailed step-by-step approach with video to serve as a guide to surgeons who are planning for safe removal of pre-peritoneal inguinal hernia mesh.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L, Malmstrøm J, Andersen FH, Wara P, Juul P, Callesen T (2001) Quality assessment of 26,304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 358(9288):1124–1128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rutkow IM (2003) Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin North Am 83(5):1045–1051 (v–vi)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kouhia S, Vironen J, Hakala T, Paajanen H (2015) Open mesh repair for inguinal hernia is safer than laparoscopic repair or open non-mesh repair: a nationwide registry study of complications. World J Surg 39(8):1878–1884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Winslow ER, Quasebarth M, Brunt LM (2004) Perioperative outcomes and complications of open vs laparoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair in a mature surgical practice. Surg Endosc 18(2):221–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rutkow IM (1998) Epidemiologic, economic, and sociologic aspects of hernia surgery in the United States in the 1990s. Surg Clin North Am 78(6):941–951 (v-vi)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Slooter GD, Zwaans WAR, Perquin CW, Roumen RMH, Scheltinga MRM (2018) Laparoscopic mesh removal for otherwise intractable inguinal pain following endoscopic hernia repair is feasible, safe and may be effective in selected patients. Surg Endosc 32(3):1613–1619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tschuor C, Metzger J, Clavien PA, Vonlanthen R, Lehmann K (2015) Inguinal hernia repair in Switzerland. Hernia 19(5):741–745

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bittner R, Schwarz J (2012) Inguinal hernia repair: current surgical techniques. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(2):271–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ravindran R, Bruce J, Debnath D, Poobalan A, King PM (2006) A United Kingdom survey of surgical technique and handling practice of inguinal canal structures during hernia surgery. Surgery 139(4):523–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Saleh F, Okrainec A, D’souza N, Kwong J, Jackson TD (2014) Safety of laparoscopic and open approaches for repair of the unilateral primary inguinal hernia: an analysis of short-term outcomes. Am J Surg 208(2):195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumayer L, Giobbie-hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350(18):1819–1827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22(1):1–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bjurström MF, Nicol AL, Amid PK, Chen DC (2014) Pain control following inguinal herniorrhaphy: current perspectives. J Pain Res 7:277–290

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cunningham LA, Ramshaw B (2016) Mesh removal for chronic pain: a review of laparoscopic and open techniques. In: Jacob BP, Chen DC, Ramshaw B, Towfigh S (eds) The SAGES manual of groin pain. Springer, Switzerland, pp 301–317

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Alvarez R (2016) Dermatome mapping: preoperative and postoperative assessment. In: Jacob BP, Chen DC, Ramshaw B, Towfigh S (eds) The SAGES manual of groin pain. Springer, Switzerland, pp 277–292

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Bjurström MF, Álvarez R, Nicol AL, Olmstead R, Amid PK, Chen DC (2017) Quantitative validation of sensory mapping in persistent post-herniorrhaphy inguinal pain patients undergoing triple neurectomy. Hernia 21(2):207–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Langbach O, Holmedal SH, Grandal OJ, Røkke O (2016) Adhesions to mesh after ventral hernia mesh repair are detected by MRI but are not a cause of long term chronic abdominal pain. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016:2631598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zarrinkhoo E, Towfigh S (2016) Risks of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted mesh removal after inguinal hernia repair. In: Annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Boston, MA, March 16–19

  19. International Association for the Study of Pain, Subcommittee on Taxonomy (1986) Classification of chronic pain. Descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms. Pain 3(Suppl):S1–S226

    Google Scholar 

  20. Koning GG, Wetterslev J, Van laarhoven CJ, Keus F (2013) The totally extraperitoneal method versus Lichtenstein’s technique for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized clinical trials. PLoS ONE 8(1):e52599

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Öberg S, Andresen K, Klausen TW, Rosenberg J (2018) Chronic pain after mesh versus non-mesh repair of inguinal hernias: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surgery 163(5):1151–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lange JF, Kaufmann R, Wijsmuller AR, Pierie JP, Ploeg RJ, Chen DC, Amid PK (2015) An international consensus algorithm for management of chronic postoperative inguinal pain. Hernia 19(1):33–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Valvekens E, Nijs Y, Miserez M (2015) Long-term outcome of surgical treatment of chronic postoperative groin pain: a word of caution. Hernia 19(4):587–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Campanelli G, Bertocchi V, Cavalli M, Bombini G, Biondi A, Tentorio T, Sfeclan C, Canziani M (2013) Surgical treatment of chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 17(3):347–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Adam Truong

  2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Badr Saad Al-Aufey

  3. Beverly Hills Hernia Center, 450 N Roxbury Drive, #224, Beverly Hills, CA, 90210, USA

    Shirin Towfigh

Authors
  1. Adam Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Badr Saad Al-Aufey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shirin Towfigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirin Towfigh.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Shirin Towfigh reports research grants from Bard/Davol, Inc, research grants from Intuitive Surgical, Inc., and consultantship from Tela Bio, Inc. All are relevant outside the submitted manuscript. Dr. Adam Truong and Badr Saad Al-Aufey have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material video (MP4 333332 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Truong, A., Al-Aufey, B.S. & Towfigh, S. Step-by-step guide to safe removal of pre-peritoneal inguinal mesh. Surg Endosc 33, 2680–2685 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6558-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6558-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation