Abstract
Background
Groin hernia management has a significant worldwide diversity with multiple surgical techniques and variable outcomes. The International guidelines for groin hernia management serve to help in groin hernia management, but the acceptance among general surgeons remains unknown. The aim of our study was to gauge the degree of agreement with the guidelines among health care professionals worldwide.
Methods
Forty-six key statements and recommendations of the International guidelines for groin hernia management were selected and presented at plenary consensus conferences at four international congresses in Europe, the America’s and Asia. Participants could cast their votes through live voting. Additionally, a web survey was sent out to all society members allowing online voting after each congress. Consensus was defined as > 70% agreement among all participants.
Results
In total 822 surgeons cast their vote on the key statements and recommendations during the four plenary consensus meetings or via the web survey. Consensus was reached on 34 out of 39 (87%) recommendations, and on six out of seven (86%) statements. No consensus was reached on the use of light versus heavy-weight meshes (69%), superior cost-effectiveness of day-case laparo-endoscopic repair (69%), omitting prophylactic antibiotics in hernia repair, general or local versus regional anesthesia in elderly patients (55%) and re-operation in case of immediate postoperative pain (59%).
Conclusion
Globally, there is 87% consensus regarding the diagnosis and management of groin hernias. This provides a solid basis for standardizing the care path of patients with groin hernias.
Groin hernia repair is globally performed in more than 20 million patients per year [1,2,3,4,5]. Multiple surgical techniques exist to repair groin hernias with variable outcomes. Despite guidelines [6,7,8], there is significant worldwide diversity in management of groin hernias, depending on surgeons' expertise, patients characteristics, local resources, reimbursement systems and cultural differences between regions.
In 2018, the HerniaSurge group, a joint initiative of seven scientific surgical societies with a focus on hernia surgery, published the first International Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management [9]. These guidelines were developed according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system [10, 11], and were endorsed by the European Hernia Society (EHS), the Americas Hernia Society (AHS), The Asian-Pacific Hernia Society (APHS), the Afro Middle East Hernia Society (AMEHS), the Australasian Hernia Society, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) and International Endohernia Society (IEHS) [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. However, acceptance among general surgeons remains unknown. A modified consensus method was developed to gauge the degree of agreement with the guidelines among health care professionals. This manuscript presents the outcomes of consensus conferences both in-person and online.
Methods
The International Guidelines on Groin Hernia Management were developed by a working group of 50 hernia experts, called the ‘HerniaSurge’ group [9]. All experts had clinical and scientific expertise in groin hernia surgery. Research questions were formulated and assigned to groups of two or three experts. Critical appraisal of the literature was performed according to Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) rules and the GRADE approach [11, 19, 20]. During several meetings, results were discussed within the working group. Chapters were written and statements and recommendations were formulated. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was used for the guideline development process to ensure the highest standard for quality [21]. Finally, the guidelines were validated by three external reviewers.
A face-to-face expert consensus meeting among the HerniaSurge members was held in Rotterdam on June 5th 2016 to discuss the final statements and recommendations. A modified Delphi method was used. All statements and recommendations with level of evidence were presented. Discussion was initiated by presenting a summary of the reviewed literature pertaining to that specific topic. The experts voted on the eligibility of each recommendation for voting at international plenary consensus conferences. Refraining from voting was not allowed. Statements and recommendations that all HerniaSurge members agreed on were included for the plenary consensus conferences. Finally, 46 items from the international guidelines for groin hernia management were selected as most important and renewing (See “Appendix”).
International plenary consensus conferences
Plenary consensus conferences were organized at four international congresses: the European Hernia Society (EHS) Congress 2016 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands; the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) Congress 2016 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands; the Asian-Pacific Hernia Society (APHS) Congress 2016 in Tokyo, Japan; and the Americas Hernia Society (AHS) Congress 2017 in Cancun, Mexico. Forty-six key statements and recommendations were presented at each conference chaired by an independent coordinator (NvV).
Before the start of each congress, society members were e-mailed with the announcement of the plenary consensus conference. Additionally, a concept of the international guideline on groin hernia management was published online to provide background information prior to the consensus conferences.
At the plenary consensus conferences, key statements and recommendations were presented in seven categories: ‘Groin Hernias,’ ‘General Aspects,’ ‘Open Groin Hernia Repair,’ ‘Laparo-endoscopic Groin Hernia Repair,’ ‘Bilateral, Femoral and Incarcerated Hernias,’ ‘Outcomes,’ and ‘Organization of Care.’ All items were displayed with the original research question, the level of evidence and strength of the recommendation. Additionally, all congress delegates were asked four baseline questions about their profession, continental origin, yearly number of groin hernia repairs they performed and their preference for surgical repair method.
Congress delegates were given one minute per statement or recommendation to vote. There were three voting options for statements and four options for recommendations (Table 1). Voting at the plenary consensus conferences was performed using a digital voting system accessible via an app or online website. Consensus was defined as agreement by more than 70% of the participants.
Due to logistical reasons, live voting was not possible at the APHS in Tokyo. Alternatively, all statements and recommendations were presented in a plenary presentation and paper questionnaires were handed out to all congress delegates after the session. The paper questionnaires contained all statements and recommendations with the voting options. Completed questionnaires could be returned during the rest of the congress at the HerniaSurge booth in the main hall of the congress building.
After each congress, the 46 key statements and recommendations were entered into a web survey and sent by e-mail to all members of the corresponding hernia society. The e-mail referred to the recent plenary consensus conference. Members that were unable to attend the congress were invited to cast their vote through the online web survey. Voting options were the same as the abovementioned. There was no time limit to complete the web survey. The web surveys were launched after each congress, and open until April 1st 2017.
SPSS was used to analyze the outcomes per hernia society. A Chi-square test was performed to determine whether baseline characteristics differed between hernia societies.
Results
In total 822 (range 723–1072) participants cast their votes either in-person or online: 303 EHS delegates (213 on-site, 90 via web survey), 404 EAES members (181 on-site, 223 via web survey), 233 AHS delegates (84 on-site, 149 via web survey), and 132 APHS members (54 on-site, 78 via web survey). A majority of the participants was either a surgeon (65,8%) or a hernia expert surgeon (23,1%). Continental origin corresponded for all hernia societies, except for the APHS where 44,7% (59/132) of the participants was from Asia. A similar group of 39% (52/132) participants at this congress originated from Europe. The expertise among participants is reflected by yearly number of groin hernia repairs: 30,5% of the respondents performed over 100 repairs per year and 32,4% performs 51–100 repairs annually (Fig. 1). Preference for surgical technique was in 30,9% a Lichtenstein repair, in 29,6% a laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair (TEP) and 24,3% a transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) (Fig. 2).
Baseline characteristics were found not to be significantly different between hernia societies, χ2(1) = 46.06, p > 0.05. Level of Evidence (LoE), as determined by the HerniaSurge working group, will be provided after each statement or recommendation. The level of consensus (LoC) will be provided in the calculated percentage.
Groin hernias
Consensus was reached on all statements and recommendations in the category ‘Groin Hernias’ (Fig. 3).
There was consensus in 94% that the presence of a groin hernia can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms (LoE: low; LoC: 94%). Ultrasonography is the preferred imaging when there is doubt about the presence of a groin hernia [22] while MRI, CT or herniography are alternatives [23].
Intrinsic risk factors for the development of primary inguinal hernias include inheritance, a previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age and abnormal collagen metabolism [24,25,26,27,28,29]. Acquired risk factors for the development of primary inguinal hernias are previous prostatectomy and low body mass index [30,31,32,33,34,35]. Perioperative risk factors for recurrence like poor surgical technique, low surgical volume, and surgical inexperience should be considered in the management of groin hernia patients (LoE: low; LoC: 92%).
The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify inguinal hernia patients for tailored treatment, research and audit (LoE: low; LoC: 81%) [36].
Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia patients may be managed with “watchful waiting” since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery, and surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients (LoE: High; LoC: 89%) [37,38,39,40].
General aspects
Consensus was reached on seven recommendations on ‘General aspects’ (Fig. 4). No consensus was reached on one statement and four recommendations. The statement without consensus concerned the benefits of so-called lightweight meshes in inguinal hernia surgery (LoE: low; LoC: 69%). The recommendations without consensus concerned the cost-effectiveness of day-case laparo-endoscopic surgery (LoE: moderate; LoC: 69%), no antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in a low-risk environment in open mesh repair (LoE: high; LoC: 67%), no antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in any environment in laparo-endoscopic repair (LoE: low; LoC: 63%) and general or local anesthesia over regional in patients aged 65 and older (LoE: low; LoC: 55%).
One standard repair technique for all groin hernias does not exist. It is recommended that surgeons/surgical services provide both anterior and posterior approach options (LoE: very low; LoC: 91%). Surgical treatment should be tailored to the surgeon’s expertise, patient- and hernia-related characteristics and local/national resources (LoE: very low; LoC: 96%) [41]. HerniaSurge suggests Lichtenstein or a laparo-endoscopic repair as optimal techniques. Provided that resources and expertise are available, laparo-endoscopic techniques have faster recovery times, lower chronic pain risk and are cost-effective [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55].
Mesh repair is recommended as the first choice, either by an open procedure or a laparo-endoscopic repair technique (LoE: moderate; LoC: 95%) [56]. Surgeons should be aware of the intrinsic characteristics of the meshes they use (LoE: low; LoC: 96%).
Day surgery is recommended for simple groin hernia provided aftercare is organized and suggested for selected other cases (e.g., after local anesthetic in ASA III patients) (LoE: moderate; LoC: 95%) [55, 57, 58].
Local anesthesia in open repair has many advantages and is suggested to be used (especially in patients with severe systemic disease) provided the surgeon is experienced in this technique (LoE: high; LoC: 76%) [59,60,61,62,63,64]. Perioperative field blocks are recommended in all cases of open repair (LoE: high; LoC: 84%) [65,66,67,68,69].
Open groin hernia repair
Consensus was reached on all statements and recommendations on ‘Open Groin Hernia Repair’ (Fig. 5).
In open surgery, Lichtenstein repair is recommended over a pre-peritoneal mesh repair (LoE: very low; LoC: 75%) [70, 71]. The use of open non-mesh repair in specific patients or types (e.g., young males with lateral hernia L1) of inguinal hernia as an acceptable alternative to a Lichtenstein technique requires further studies (LoE: low; LoC: 71%).
In case a non-mesh inguinal hernia repair will be performed, the Shouldice technique is recommended since it has lower recurrence rates than other suture repairs (LoE: moderate; LoE: 77%) [56].
Despite comparable results, three-dimensional implants (plug-and-patch and bilayer) are not recommended because of the excessive use of foreign material, the need to enter both the posterior and anterior planes and the additional cost (LoE: low; LoC: 82%) [72,73,74,75].
Nerve anatomy awareness and recognition during surgery is recommended to reduce the incidence of chronic post-herniorrhaphy pain (LoE: low; LoC: 94%). During open surgery, planned prophylactic ilioinguinal nerve resection is not suggested since it does not reduce chronic pain incidence and it increases the incidence of postoperative sensory loss (LoE: low; LoC: 83%) [76]. Pragmatic resection of the ilioinguinal nerve and/or the iliohypogastric nerve is recommended if iatrogenic nerve injury occurs or if the nerve(s) interfere(s) with mesh position (LoE: low; LoC: 91%) [77].
Laparo-Endoscopic groin hernia repair
Consensus was reached on all statements and recommendations on ‘Laparo-endoscopic Groin Hernia Repair’ (Fig. 6).
For male patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia, a laparo-endoscopic technique is suggested because of a lower postoperative pain incidence and a reduction in chronic pain incidence, provided that a surgeon with specific expertise and sufficient resources is available. However, there are patient and hernia characteristics that warrant a Lichtenstein as first choice (LoE: moderate; LoC: 73%) [78].
TAPP and TEP have similar operative times, overall complication risks, postoperative acute and chronic pain incidence, and recurrence rates (LoE: moderate; LoC: 72%) [78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86]. Since TAPP and TEP have comparable outcomes, it is recommended that the choice of the technique should be based on the surgeon’s skills, education, and experience (LoE: moderate; LoC: 94%).
In almost all cases, mesh fixation in TEP is unnecessary. In both TAPP and TEP it is recommended to fix the mesh in large direct hernias (M3-EHS classification) to reduce recurrence risk (LoE: very low; LoC: 85%).
It is recommended that the contra-lateral groin be inspected at the time of TAPP repair. If a contra-lateral inguinal hernia is found at the time of surgery and prior informed consent was obtained, repair is recommended (LoE: very low; LoC: 85%) [87, 88].
Bilateral, femoral and incarcerated hernias
Consensus was reached on all recommendations on ‘Bilateral, Femoral, and Incarcerated Hernias’ (Fig. 7).
Primary bilateral inguinal hernias are recommended to be repaired laparo-endoscopically (LoE: low; LoC: 91%). There is discussion concerning the laparo-endoscopic management of potential bilateral hernias (occult hernia issue). After patient consent, during TAPP, the contra-lateral side can be inspected. This is not suggested during unilateral TEP repair.
Provided expertise is available, women with groin hernias are suggested to undergo timely laparo-endoscopic mesh repair in order to decrease chronic pain risk and avoid missing a femoral hernia (LoE: moderate; LoC: 77%) [89,90,91].
In the case of elective femoral hernia repair mesh is recommended to be used (LoE: low; LoC: 92%) [92, 93].
Risk factors for incarceration/strangulation include female gender, femoral hernia presence, and a history of hospitalization related to groin hernia [28, 94,95,96,97]. It is suggested that treatment of emergencies is tailored according to patient- and hernia-related factors, local expertise, and resources. Monofilamental large pore polypropylene mesh-based repair is suggested in emergent groin hernia surgery with a clean or clean-contaminated surgical field (LoE: low; LoC: 73%) [98, 99].
Outcomes
Consensus was reached on five of the six recommendations concerning ‘Outcomes’ (Fig. 8). On the recommendation about immediate re-operation in patients with immediate postoperative pain, there was no agreement (LoE: very low; LoC: 59%).
After groin hernia repair an early return to normal activities can be safely recommended (LoE: low; LoC: 83%) [100].
Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is a serious complication affecting 10–12% of inguinal hernia repair patients [101,102,103]. It is defined as bothersome moderate pain impacting daily activities lasting at least 3 months postoperatively [104]. CPIP risk factors include young age, female gender, high pre-operative pain, early high postoperative pain, recurrent hernia and open repair [7, 105].
It is suggested that CPIP management is performed by multidisciplinary teams (LoE: low; LoC: 94%) [106]. It is also suggested that CPIP is managed by a combination of pharmacological and interventional measures. If this is unsuccessful, management should be followed by, in selected cases, (triple) neurectomy and (in selected cases) mesh removal [107].
Recurrence rates after inguinal hernia repair can be as high as 15% [108]. For recurrent hernias after failed anterior tissue or mesh repair, posterior repair is recommended (LoE: moderate; LoC: 91%). If recurrence occurs after a posterior repair, an anterior repair is recommended (LoE: moderate; LoC: 88%). After a failed anterior and posterior approach, management by a dedicated hernia surgeon is recommended (LoE: low; LoC: 96%).
Organization of care
Consensus was reached on all statements and recommendations concerning the ‘Organization of Care’ (Fig. 9).
A goal-directed curriculum including review of anatomy, procedure steps, intraoperative decision making and proficiency-based, simulation enhanced technical skills training should be available to trainees whenever possible (LoE: moderate; LoC: 97%) [109].
In order for centers and surgeons to be certified as either a hernia center or a hernia specialist, minimal requirements on numbers of operations, follow-up and quality control should be met (LoE: very low; LoC: 85%) [110].
The development and implementation of national groin hernia registries in every country is suggested (LoE: low; LoC: 90%). They should include long-term patient follow-up data and account for local healthcare structures.
Due to a substantial lack of access to surgery, inguinal hernia prevalence in low resource settings is too high (LoE: moderate; LoC: 73%) [111,112,113,114,115,116]. Dissemination and implementation plans of the guidelines are recommended to be developed by global (HerniaSurge), regional (international societies) and local (national societies/chapters) initiatives through internet websites, social media and smartphone apps (LoE: very low; LoC: 87%) [117, 118].
It is suggested that in low resource settings the focus is on performing high-volume Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia using a low-cost mesh (LoE: low; LoC: 87%) [119].
An overarching plan to improve access to safe inguinal hernia surgery in low resource settings is needed [120]. It is suggested that this plan contains simple guidelines and a sustainability strategy allowing implementation and maintainability, independent of international aid (LoE: low; LoC: 89%).
Discussion
This study shows 87% (range 55–97%) consensus on the key statements and recommendations from the International Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management. Consensus, defined as more than 70% agreement among participants, was reached in 87% (34/39) of recommendations and in 86% (6/7) of statements. No consensus was obtained on one statement and on five recommendations, concerning the categories ‘General Aspects’ and ‘Outcome.’ The high level of agreement by so many surgeons working worldwide is an indication of high support of the content of the international guidelines.
Developing guidelines internationally poses challenges to ensure and monitor the dissemination of the content. Its implementation is subject to local working conditions, availability of resources, local economy, cultural differences, diversity in reimbursement systems and differences in logistical capabilities [121, 122]. The plenary consensus conferences at four international congresses served as a means to disseminate the content of the international guidelines and to study the level of consensus among the surgical community.
In our study 822 participants cast their votes. This response rate is higher than in a previous consensus conference on groin hernias [8]. The number of participating EHS, EAES and AHS members was comparable, whereas from the APHS there were only 132 participants. Partly this can be explained by the use of paper questionnaires instead of live voting. A majority of the respondents (540 physicians) completed the web survey. Despite this reasonable number, a higher response rate might have been reached through sending reminders. Optimal use of repetitive emails, internet, and social media might contribute to a higher number of respondents in the future.
In spite of the small number of participating surgeons, assumably a relatively large number of participants are dedicated hernia surgeons. This is reflected by the high number of hernia operations performed per participant annually. The level of experience among the participants was high, with 62.9% of the participants performing more than 50 repairs annually. The expertise among consensus participants is a strength of this study.
The average annual number of groin hernia repairs per surgeon was lower for EAES delegates, which can be explained by the fact it is a laparo-endoscopic society and not a society dedicated to hernia surgery alone. Although EAES members are laparo-endoscopic experts, only 43% favored TAPP or TEP over Lichtenstein (39,8%). It is remarkable that representatives of a laparo-endoscopic society favor an open procedure in daily practice.
The preferred laparo-endoscopic method of repair was TEP for all societies. Whereas the mesh plug technique is a popular procedure for inguinal hernia repair in Asia –mainly Japan– [123] the preferred method among the APHS members was a TEP (35,3%), possibly explained by the relatively high number of European (39%) participants at this congress. Specification of the continental origin and the preference of surgical technique can provide clarity on these results. For all hernia societies, there is a potential bias in the diversity of surgeons that voted.
No consensus could be reached on the use of light versus heavy-weight meshes (69%), superior cost-effectiveness of day-case laparo-endoscopic repair (69%), omitting prophylactic antibiotics in hernia repair, general or local anesthesia over regional in elderly patients (55%) and acute re-operation in case of immediate postoperative pain (59%). As we did not ask voters for their motivations we can only guess for explanations. Discrepancies can be related to inconclusive (low) evidence, conflicting national protocols, personal experience, cultural differences or financial aspects. Recommendations without consensus give directions for future research.
Our results show that antibiotic prophylaxis remains a controversial issue worldwide. Despite a high level of evidence, no consensus could be reached on omitting antibiotics in open repair (67%). Neither consensus was reached for omitting antibiotics in laparo-endoscopic repair (63%). Differences were distinguished between continents as well: 79% and 75% consensus among EHS-members on omitting antibiotic prophylaxis in respectively open and laparo-endoscopic repair, versus only 46% and 39% agreement among AHS delegates. The same recommendations were already published in 2009 in the European guidelines for inguinal hernia [6]. Whereas these recommendations seem to have changed daily practice in European countries, implementation in the United States awaits. A possible explanation may be the recommendation of antibiotic prophylaxis in hernia surgery by other guidelines [124]. Furthermore, prophylactic antibiotics are a required indicator and considered a quality measure by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [9]. Medico-legal aspects potentially play a role in the USA. Conflicting evidence confirms the ambiguity on this topic [125].
Day surgery for groin hernia repair has become increasingly common over the past several decades. Although there was 95% consensus that groin hernia surgery can be performed in day surgery, there was only 69% consensus on the cost-effectiveness of day-case laparo-endoscopic repair. This suggests implementation issues with laparo-endoscopic surgery. Financial incentives and judicial prescriptions might play a role since several countries require a hospital stay after certain types of surgery [126, 127]. The variety in reimbursement policies can be an explanation, but could not be confirmed in this study.
Whereas 81% of all responders are in favor of the EHS classification system for research and quality purposes, only 69% of the AHS delegates agreed with this recommendation. This outcome suggests a lower level of acceptance of the EHS classification in the USA. A possible explanation could be the development by European surgeons or discrepancies between the EU and the USA [36, 128].
A limitation of this study is the involvement of only 822 participants. There are over one million specialist surgeons worldwide [129]. The involvement of only a limited number of participants in this consensus study should be critically analyzed.
Lack of a formal consensus conference method can be considered another limitation. Despite the widespread utility of consensus methods, guidelines for conducting consensus studies are lacking [130]. Existing formal consensus methods often synthesize the best available evidence or reflect the opinion of a small number of experts [131,132,133,134,135,136,137]. This introduces a bias of highly present knowledge, whereas in the general surgical community other ideas prevail. Modified consensus development conferences with the involvement of the general community have been initiated before, but were limited to Europe only [138], conducted online [139] or had a limited number of participants [6]. The consensus conferences of this study introduce a new research method involving the general surgical community.
A third limitation of this study was the dependency on the logistic circumstances, such as the location and timing of congresses, the conference program, and participation of congress organizations to host the plenary consensus meetings. All consensus conferences needed to be hosted shortly after the online publication of the draft guidelines to facilitate participants with access to background information. Conducting an online consensus study only would limit time and costs. However, organizing face-to-face consensus conferences creates more awareness and promotes implementation of the new guideline.
The literature review deadline was July 2015 and new studies were published after this date. This can be considered a limitation because outcomes of new studies have consequences for statements and recommendations. The necessity of updating will always be the case in writing guidelines and consensus development processes.
Lastly, organizing consensus conferences will always require an investment of time and money. Many countries around the world do not have the resources, either in expertise or financially, that are needed. Therefore, it can be argued that the development of international guidelines and global consensus benefits health professionals and patients all around the globe.
Conclusion
The consensus conferences showed 87% consensus on the key statements and recommendations of the first International Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management. No consensus was reached on the use of light versus heavy-weight meshes (69%), superior cost-effectiveness of day-case laparo-endoscopic repair (69%), omitting prophylactic antibiotics in hernia repair, general or local versus regional anesthesia in elderly patients (55%) and re-operation in case of immediate postoperative pain (59%). Relevant understanding can be obtained about acceptability of the recommendations and the guideline. The outcomes of this study provide a solid basis for standardizing the care path of patients with groin hernias and identifying future research questions.
Change history
22 April 2020
In the Acknowledgments, Lars N. Jorgensen of the HerniaSurge Group was incorrectly listed as: “Lars Jorgensen, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.” The correct listing should have read: “Lars N. Jorgensen, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.”
References
Beard JH, Ohene-Yeboah M, Devries CR, Schecter WP (2015) Hernia and hydrocele. In: Debas HT, Donkor P, Gawande A, Jamison DT, Kruk ME, Mock CN. Essential Surgery: Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edn, vol 1. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2015 Apr. Chapter 9.
Meara JG, Leather AJ, Hagander L, Alkire BC, Alonso N, Ameh EA, Bickler SW, Conteh L, Dare AJ, Davies J, Mérisier ED, El-Halabi S, Farmer PE, Gawande A, Gillies R, Greenberg SL, Grimes CE, Gruen RL, Ismail EA, Kamara TB, Lavy C, Lundeg G, Mkandawire NC, Raykar NP, Riesel JN, Rodas E, Rose J, Roy N, Shrime MG, Sullivan R, Verguet S, Watters D, Weiser TG, Wilson IH, Yamey G, Yip W (2015) Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet 386(9993):569–624
Price R, Makasa E, Hollands M (2015) World Health Assembly Resolution WHA68.15: "strengthening emergency and essential surgical care and anesthesia as a component of universal health coverage"—addressing the public health gaps arising from lack of safe, affordable and accessible surgical and anesthetic services. World J Surg 39(9):2115–2125
Meara JG, Hagander L, Leather AJ (2014) Surgery and global health: a Lancet commission. Lancet 383(9911):12–13
Botman M, Meester RJ, Voorhoeve R, Mothes H, Henry JA, Cotton MH, Lane RH, Jani PG, Heij HA, Ismail EA (2015) The Amsterdam declaration on essential surgical care. World J Surg 39(6):1335–1340
Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, de Lange D, Fortelny R, Heikkinen T, Kingsnorth A, Kukleta J, Morales-Conde S, Nordin P, Schumpelick V, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, Weber G, Miserez M (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13:343–403
Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli GS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH, Klinge U, Kockerling F, Kuhry E, Kukleta J, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Reinpold W, Rosenberg J, Sauerland S, Schug-Pass C, Singh K, Timoney M, Weyhe D, Chowbey P (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc 25(9):2773–2843
Poelman MM, van den Heuvel B, Deelder JD, Abis GS, Beudeker N, Bittner RR, Campanelli G, van Dam D, Dwars BJ, Eker HH, Fingerhut A, Khatkov I, Koeckerling F, Kukleta JF, Miserez M, Montgomery A, Munoz Brands RM, Morales Conde S, Muysoms FE, Soltes M, Tromp W, Yavuz Y, Bonjer HJ (2013) EAES Consensus Development Conference on endoscopic repair of groin hernias. Surg Endosc 27(10):3505–3519
HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22(1):1–165
Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, GRADE Working Group (2004) Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 4(1):38
Goldet G, Howick J (2013) Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evid Based Med 6(1):50–54
Campanelli G (2018) Endorsement of the Herniasurge guidelines by the European Hernia Society. Hernia 22(1):169
Carbonell AM (2018) Endorsement of the HerniaSurge guidelines by the Americas Hernia Society. Hernia 22(1):171
Sharma A (2018) Endorsement of the HerniaSurge guidelines by the Asia Pacific Hernia Society. Hernia 22(1):173
Sani R (2018) Endorsement of the HerniaSurge guidelines by the Afro Middle East Hernia Society. Hernia 22(1):175
Tran H (2018) Endorsement of the HerniaSurge guidelines by the Australasian Hernia Society. Hernia 22(1):177
Bittner R, Köckerling F (2018) Endorsement of the HerniaSurge guidelines by the International Endohernia Society. Hernia 22(1):179
Targarona EM (2018) Endorsement of the HerniaSurge guidelines by the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery. Hernia 22(1):181
Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes BDM (2001) Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine - Levels of evidence. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
SIGN 50 (2019) A guideline developer’s handbook. https://www.sign.ac.uk/sign-50.html. Accessed 10 March 2019
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Graham ID, Grimshaw J, Hanna SE, Littlejohns P, Makarski J, Zitzelsberger L, AGREE Next Steps Consortium (2010) AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 182(18):E839–E842
Van den Berg JC, de Valois JC, Go PM, Rosenbusch G (1999) Detection of groin hernia with physical examination, ultrasound, and MRI compared with laparoscopic findings. Invest Radiol 34(12):739–743
Garvey JFW (2012) Computed tomography scan diagnosis of occult groin hernia. Hernia 16(3):307–314
Akin ML, Karakaya M, Batkin A, Nogay A (1997) Prevalence of inguinal hernia in otherwise healthy males of 20 to 22 years of age. J R Army Med Corps 143(2):101–102
Liem MS, van der Graaf Y, Zwart RC, Geurts I, van Vroonhoven TJ (1997) Risk factors for inguinal hernia in women: a case-control study. The coala trial group. Am J Epidemiol 146(9):721–726
Burcharth J, Pedersen M, Bisgaard T, Pedersen C, Rosenberg J (2013) Nationwide prevalence of groin hernia repair. PLoS ONE 8(1):e5436
Van Wessem KJP, Simons MP, Plaisier PW (2003) The etiology of indirect inguinal hernias: congenital and/or acquired? Hernia 7(2):76–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-002-0108-7
Ruhl CE, Everhart JE (2007) Risk factors for inguinal hernia among adults in the US population. Am J Epidemiol 165(10):1154–1161
Quintas ML, Rodrigues CJ, Yoo JH, Junior RAJ (2000) Age related changes in the elastic fiber system of the interfoveolar ligament. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo 55(3):83–86
Nilsson H, Stranne J, Stattin P, Nordin P (2014) Incidence of groin hernia repair after radical prostatectomy: a population-based nationwide study. Ann Surg 259(6):1223–1227
Stranne J, Johansson E, Nilsson A, Bill-Axelson A, Carlsson S, Holmberg L, Johansson JE, Nyberg T, Ruutu M, Wiklund NP, Steineck G (2010) Inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results from a randomized setting and a nonrandomized setting. Eur Urol 58(5):719–726
Lodding P, Bergdahl C, Nyberg M, Pileblad E, Stranne J, Hugosson J (2001) Inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a study of incidence and risk factors in comparison to no operation and lymphadenectomy. J Urol 166(3):964–967
Ichioka K, Kohei N, Yoshimura K, Arai Y, Terai A (2007) Impact of retraction of vas deferens in postradical prostatectomy inguinal hernia. Urology 70(3):511–514
Rosemar A, Angerås U, Rosengren A, Nordin P (2010) Effect of body mass index on groin hernia surgery. Ann Surg 252(2):397–401
Rosemar A, Angerås U, Rosengren A (2008) Body mass index and groin hernia: a 34-year follow-up study in Swedish men. Ann Surg 247(6):1064–1068
Miserez M, Alexandre JH, Campanelli G, Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, Pascual MH, Hoeferlin A, Kingsnorth AN, Mandala V, Palot JP, Schumpelick V, Simmermacher RK, Stoppa R, Flament JB (2007) The European hernia society groin hernia classification: simple and easy to remember. Hernia 11(2):113–116
Fitzgibbons RJ, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gibbs JO, Dunlop DD, Reda DJ, McCarthy M Jr, Neumayer LA, Barkun JS, Hoehn JL, Murphy JT, Sarosi GA Jr, Syme WC, Thompson JS, Wang J, Jonasson O (2006) Watchful waiting vs repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 295(3):285–292
O’Dwyer PJ, Norrie J, Alani A, Walker A, Duffy F, Horgan P (2006) Observation or operation for patients with an asymptomatic inguinal hernia: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 244(2):167–173
Van den Heuvel B, Dwars BJ, Klassen DR, Bonjer HJ (2011) Is surgical repair of an asymptomatic groin hernia appropriate? A review. Hernia 15(3):251–259
INCA Trialists Collaboration (2011) Operation compared with watchful waiting in elderly male inguinal hernia patients: a review and data analysis. J Am Coll Surg 212(2):251
Morales-Conde S, Socas M, Fingerhut A (2012) Endoscopic surgeons’ preferences for inguinal hernia repair: TEP, TAPP, or OPEN. Surg Endosc 26(9):2639–2643
Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R (2005) Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 19(2):188–199
Hamza Y, Gabr E, Hammadi H, Khalil R (2010) Four-arm randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and open hernia repairs. Int J Surg 8(1):25–28
Butler RE, Burke R, Schneider JJ, Brar H, Lucha PA (2007) The economic impact of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: results of a double-blinded, prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc 21(3):387–390
Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Koivukangas P, Hulkko A (1998) A prospective randomized outcome and cost comparison of totally extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty versus Lichtenstein hernia operation among employed patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8(5):338–344
Gokalp A, Inal M, Maralcan G, Baskonus I (2003) A prospective randomized study of Lichtenstein open tension-free versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Acta Chir Belg 103(5):502–506
Lau H, Patil NG, Yuen WK (2006) Day-case endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty versus open Lichtenstein hernioplasty for unilateral primary inguinal hernia in males: a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 20(1):76–81
Eklund A, Montgomery A, Bergkvist L, Rudberg C (2010) Chronic pain 5 years after randomized comparison of laparoscopic and Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 97(4):600–608
Eklund A, Carlsson P, Rosenblad A, Montgomery A, Bergkvist L, Rudberg C (2010) Long-term cost-minimization analysis comparing laparoscopic with open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 97(5):765–771
Dahlstrand U, Sandblom G, Ljungdahl M, Wollert S, Gunnarsson U (2013) TEP under general anesthesia is superior to Lichtenstein under local anesthesia in terms of pain 6 weeks after surgery: results from a randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 27:3632–3638
Dhankhar DS, Sharma N, Mishra T, Kaur N, Singh S, Gupta S (2014) Totally extraperitoneal repair under general anesthesia versus Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia for unilateral inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 28(3):996–1002
Koninger J, Redecke J, Butters M (2004) Chronic pain after hernia repair: a randomized trial comparing Shouldice Lichtenstein and TAPP. Langenbecks Arch Surg 389(5):361–365
Butters M, Redecke J, Kninger J (2007) Long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of Shouldice, Lichtenstein and transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repairs. Br J Surg 94(5):562–565
Kockerling F, Stechemesser B, Hukauf M, Kuthe A, Schug-Pass C (2015) TEP versus Lichtenstein: which technique is better for the repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernias in men? Surg Endosc 30(8):3304–3313
Voyles CR, Hamilton BJ, Johnson WD, Kano N (2002) Metaanalysis of laparoscopic inguinal hernia trials favors open hernia repair with preperitoneal mesh prosthesis. Am J Surg 184:6–10
Amato B, Moja L, Panico S, Persico G, Rispoli C, Rocco N, Moschetti I (2009) Shouldice technique versus other open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7(4):CD001543
Majholm B, Engbæk J, Bartholdy J, Oerding H, Ahlburg P, Ulrik AM, Bill L, Langfrits CS, Møller AM (2012) Is day surgery safe? A Danish multicentre study of morbidity after 57,709 day surgery procedures. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56(3):323–331
McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD01785
Cheek CM, Black NA, Devlin HB, Kingsnorth AN, Taylor RS, Watkin DF (1998) Groin hernia surgery: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 80(Suppl 1):S1–80
Reece-Smith AM, Maggio AQ, Tang TY, Walsh SR (2009) Local anaesthetic vs. general anaesthetic for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract 63(12):1739–1742
Jensen P, Mikkelsen T, Kehlet H (2002) Postherniorrhaphy urinary retention—effect of local, regional, and general anesthesia: a review. Reg Anesth Pain Med 27(6):612–617
Kehlet H, Aasvang E (2005) Groin hernia repair: anesthesia. World J Surg 29(8):1058–1061
Callesen T (2003) Inguinal hernia repair: anaesthesia, pain and convalescence. Dan Med Bull 50(3):203–218
Joshi GP, Rawal N, Kehlet H, PROSPECT collaboration, Bonnet F, Camu F, Fischer HB, Neugebauer EA, Schug SA, Simanski CJ (2012) Evidence-based management of postoperative pain in adults undergoing open inguinal hernia surgery. Br J Surg 99(2):168–185
Andersen FH, Nielsen K, Kehlet H (2005) Combined ilioinguinal blockade and local infiltration anaesthesia for groin hernia repair—a double-blind randomized study. Br J Anaesth 94:520–523
Ding Y, White PF (1995) Post-herniorrhaphy pain in outpatients after pre-incision ilioinguinal-hypogastric nerve block during monitored anaesthesia care. Can J Anaesth 42:12–15
Toivonen J, Permi J, Rosenberg PH (2001) Effect of preincisional ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block on postoperative analgesic requirement in day-surgery patients undergoing herniorrhaphy under spinal anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 45:603–607
Bugedo GJ, Carcamo CR, Mertens RA, Dagnino JA, Munoz HR (1990) Preoperative percutaneous ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block with 0.5% bupivacaine for post-herniorrhaphy pain management in adults. Reg Anesth 15:130–133
O’Hanlon JJ, McCleane G, Muldoon T (1996) Preoperative application of piroxicam gel compared to a local anaesthetic field block for postoperative analgesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 40:715–718
Willaert W, Berrevoet F, De Bacquer D, Rogiers X, Troisi R (2009) Open preperitoneal techniques versus Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:1–28
Sajid MS, Craciunas L, Singh KK, Sains P, Baig MK (2013) Open transinguinal preperitoneal mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a targeted systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. Gastroenterol Rep 1:127–137
Zhao G, Gao P, Ma B, Tian J, Yang K (2009) Open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 250:35–42
Li J, Ji Z, Li Y (2012) Comparison of mesh-plug and Lichtenstein for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia 16:541–548
Nienhuijs SW, Rosman C (2015) Long-term outcome after randomizing prolene hernia system, mesh plug repair and Lichtenstein for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 19:77–81
Droeser RA, Dell-Kuster S, Kurmann A, Rosenthal R, Zuber M, Metzger J, Oertli D, Hamel CT, Frey DM (2014) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s operation versus mesh plug repair for inguinal hernia. Ann Surg 259:966–972
Li J, Ji Z, Li Y (2014) The comparison of self-gripping mesh and sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: the results of meta-analysis. Ann Surg 259(6):1080–1085
Pierides G, Scheinin T, Remes V, Hermunen K, Vironen J (2012) Randomized comparison of self-fixating and sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 99:630–636
Memon MA, Cooper NJ, Memon B, Memon MI, Abrams KR (2003) Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 90:1479–1492
Weiser H, Klinge B (2000) Endoskopische operationstechniken. Erfahrungen und besonderheiten-leistenhernie. Viszeralchirurgie 35(3):316–320
McCormack K, Wake BL, Fraser C, Vale L, Perez J, Grant A (2005) Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Hernia 9(2):109–114
Tolver MA, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T (2012) Early pain after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. a qualitative systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56:549–557
O’Reilly EA, Burke JP, O’Connell PR (2012) A meta-analysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Ann Surg 255(5):846–853
Bracale U, Melillo P, Pignata G, Di Salvo E, Rovani M, Merola G, Pecchia L (2012) Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26:3355–3366
Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Bartsch DK, Fendrich V, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2013) Transabdominal preperitoneal versus totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Am J Surg 206:245–252
Wei FX, Zhang YC, Han W, Zhang YL, Shao Y, Ni R (2015) Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus totally. Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(5):375–383
McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J (2005) Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9(1–203):iii–iv
Van den Heuvel B, Beudeker N, Van den Broek J, Bogte ADB (2013) The incidence and natural course of occult inguinal hernias during TAPP repair. Repair is beneficial. Surg Endosc 27:4142–4146
Thumbe VKED (2001) To repair or not to repair incidental defects found on laparoscopic repair of groin hernia. Surg Endosc 15:47–49
Kark AEKM (2008) Groin hernias in women. Hernia 12(3):267–270
Lau H, Patil NGYW (2005) Is endoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty justified for the repair of groin hernia in female patients? Surg Endosc 19(12):1544–1548
Schouten N, Burgmans JP, van Dalen T, Smakman N, Clevers GJ, Davids PH, Verleisdonk EJ, Elias SG, Simmermacher RK (2012) Female ‘groin’ hernia: totally extraperitoneal (TEP) endoscopic repair seems the most appropriate treatment modality. Hernia 16(4):387–392
Andresen K, Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Wara P, Rosenberg J (2014) Reoperation rates for laparoscopic vs open repair of femoral hernias in Denmark: a nationwide analysis. JAMA Surg 149(8):853–857
Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H, Strand L, Malmstrøm J, Andersen FH, Wara P, Juul P, Callesen T, Collaboration DHD (2001) Quality assessment of 26,304 herniorrhaphies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet 358(9288):1124–1128
Dahlstrand U, Wollert S, Nordin P, Sandblom G, Gunnarsson U (2009) Emergency femoral hernia repair: a study based on a national register. Ann Surg 249(4):672–676
Kurt N, Oncel M, Ozkan Z, Bingul S (2003) Risk and outcome of bowel resection in patients with incarcerated groin hernias: retrospective study. World J Surg 27(6):741–743
Suppiah A, Gatt M, Barandiaran J, Heng MS, Perry EP (2007) Outcomes of emergency and elective femoral hernia surgery in four district general hospitals: a 4-year study. Hernia 11(6):509–512
Alhambra-Rodriguez de Guzmán C, Picazo-Yeste J, Tenías-Burillo JM, Moreno-Sanz C (2013) Improved outcomes of incarcerated femoral hernia: a multivariate analysis of predictive factors of bowel ischemia and potential impact on postoperative complications. Am J Surg 205(2):188–193
Myers E, Browne KM, Kavanagh DO, Hurley M (2010) Laparoscopic (TEP) versus Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: a comparison of quality-of-life outcomes. World J Surg 34(12):3059–3064
Atila K, Guler S, Inal A, Sokmen S, Karademir S, Bora S (2010) Prosthetic repair of acutely incarcerated groin hernias: a prospective clinical observational cohort study. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 395(5):563–568
Bay-Nielsen M, Thomsen H, Andersen F, Bendix JH, Sørensen OK, Skovgaard N, Kehlet H (2004) Convalescence after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Br J Surg 91(3):362–367
Alfieri S, Amid PK, Campanelli G, Izard G, Kehlet H, Wijsmuller AR, Di Miceli D, Doglietto GB (2011) International guidelines for prevention and management of post-operative chronic pain following inguinal hernia surgery. Hernia 15(3):239–249
Bay-Nielsen M, Nilsson E, Nordin P, Kehlet H (2004) Chronic pain after open mesh and sutured repair of indirect inguinal hernia in young males. Br J Surg 91(10):1372–1376
Nienhuijs SW, Rosman C, Strobbe LJA, Wolff A, Bleichrodt RP (2008) An overview of the features influencing pain after inguinal hernia repair. Int J Surg 6(4):351–356
International Association for the Study of Pain (1986) Classification of chronic pain. Descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms. Prepared by the International Association for the Study of Pain. Subcomm Taxon Pain Suppl 3:S1–226
Bjurstrom MF, Nicol AL, Amid PK, Chen DC (2014) Pain control following inguinal herniorrhaphy: current perspectives. J Pain Res 7:277–290
Lange JFM, Kaufmann R, Wijsmuller AR, Pierie JP, Ploeg RJ, Chen DC, Amid PK (2014) An international consensus algorithm for management of chronic postoperative inguinal pain. Hernia 19(1):33–43
Alfieri S, Rotondi F, Di Giorgio A, Fumagalli U, Salzano A, Di Miceli D, Ridolfini MP, Sgagari A, Doglietto G, Groin Pain Trial Group (2006) Influence of preservation versus division of ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and genital nerves during open mesh herniorrhaphy: prospective multicentric study of chronic pain. Ann Surg 243(4):553–555
Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W, Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350:1819–1827
Gurusamy KS, Nagendran M, Toon CD, Davidson BR (2014) Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1(3):CD010478
Köckerling F, Berger D, Jost JO (2014) What is a Certified Hernia Center? The Example of the German Hernia Society and German Society of General and Visceral Surgery. Front Surg 1(July):1–4
Lofgren J, Makumbi F, Galiwango E, Nordin P, Ibingira C, Forsberg BC, Wladis A (2014) Prevalence of treated and untreated groin hernia in eastern Uganda. Br J Surg 101:728–734
Beard JH, Oresanya LB, Akoko L, Mwanga A, Dicker RA, Harris HW (2014) An estimation of inguinal hernia epidemiology adjusted for population age structure in Tanzania. Hernia 18(2):289–295
Beard JH, Oresanya LB, Ohene-Yeboah M, Dicker RA, Harris HW (2013) Characterizing the global burden of surgical disease: a method to estimate inguinal hernia epidemiology in Ghana. World J Surg 37(3):498–503
Ohene-Yeboah M, Abantanga FA (2011) Inguinal hernia disease in Africa: a common but neglected surgical condition. West Afr J Med 30(2):77–83
Kingsnorth AN, Clarke MG, Shillcutt SD (2009) Public health and policy issues of hernia surgery in Africa. World J Surg 33(6):1188–1193
Higashi H, Barendregt JJ, Kassebaum NJ, Weiser TG, Bickler SW, Vos T (2015) Surgically avertable burden of obstetric conditions in low- and middle-income regions: a modelled analysis. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 122(2):228–236
Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM (2009) An exploration of how guideline developer capacity and guideline implementability influence implementation and adoption: study protocol. Implement Sci 4:36
Datta N, MacQueen IT, Schroeder AD, Wilson JJ, Espinoza JC, Wagner JP, Filipi CJ, Chen DC (2015) Wearable technology for global surgical teleproctoring. J Surg Educ 72(6):1290–1295
Lofgren J, Nordin P, Ibingira C, Matovu A, Galiwango E, Wladis A (2016) A Randomized trial of low-cost mesh in groin hernia repair. N Engl J Med 374:146–153
World Alliance for Patient Safety (2008) Second Global Patient Safety Challenge: Safe Surgery Saves Lives. WHO Press, Geneva
Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD (2006) Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 13. Applicability, transferability and adaptation. Health Res Policy Syst 8(4):25
MacCormick AP, Akoh JA (2018) Survey of surgeons regarding prophylactic antibiotic use in inguinal hernia repair. Scand J Surg 107(3):208–211
Ishikawa S, Kawano T, Karashima R, Arita T, Yagi Y, Hirota M (2015) A case of mesh plug migration into the bladder 5 years after hernia repair. Surg Case Rep 1(1):4
Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG, Bolon MK, Fish DN, Napolitano LM, Sawyer RG, Slain D, Steinberg JP, Weinstein RA, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP); Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); Surgical Infection Society (SIS); Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) (2013) Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 14(1):73–156
Zamkowski MT, Makarewicz W, Ropel J, Bobowicz M, Kąkol M, Śmietański M (2016) Antibiotic prophylaxis in open inguinal hernia repair: a literature review and summary of current knowledge. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 11(3):127–136
Weyhe D, Winnemoller C, Hellwig A, Meurer K, Plugge H, Kasoly K, Laubenthal H, Bauer KH, Uhl W (2006) (Section sign) 115 b SGB V threatens outpatient treatment for inguinal hernia. Anal Outcome Econ Chirurg 77(9):844–855
Scarfe A, Duncan J, Ma N, Cameron A, Rankin D, Karatassas A, Fletcher D, Watters D, Maddern G (2018) Day case hernia repair: weak evidence or practice gap? ANZ J Surg 88(6):547–553
Zollinger RM (2003) Classification systems for groin hernias. Surg Clin North Am 83(5):1053–1063
Holmer H, Lantz A, Kunjumen T, Finlayson S, Hoyler M, Siyam A, Montenegro H, Kelley ET, Campbell J, Cherian MN, Hagander L (2015) Global distribution of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and obstetricians. Lancet Glob Health 27(3 Suppl 2):S9–11
Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ (2016) Is there a consensus on consensus methodology? Descriptions and recommendations for future consensus research. Acad Med 91(5):663–668
Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311(7001):376–380
Hsu CC, Sandford BA (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 12:10
Dalkey NC, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage Sci 9(3):458–467
Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C (2011) Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 6(6):e20476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020476
Nair R, Aggarwal R, Khanna D (2011) Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. Semin Arthritis Rheum 41:95–105
Rycroft-Malone J (2001) Forrmal consensus: the development of a national clinical guideline. Qual Health Care 10:238–244
Loblaw DA, Prestrud AA, Somerfield MR, Oliver TK, Brouwers MC, Nam RK, Lyman GH, Basch E, Americal Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines (2012) American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines: formal systematic review-based consensus methodology. J Clin Oncol 30:3136–3140
Gorter RR, Eker HH, Gorter-Stam MA, Abis GS, Acharya A, Ankersmit M, Antoniou SA, Arolfo S, Babic B, Boni L, Bruntink M, van Dam DA, Defoort B, Deijen CL, DeLacy FB, Go PM, Harmsen AM, van den Helder RS, Iordache F, Ket JC, Muysoms FE, Ozmen MM, Papoulas M, Rhodes M, Straatman J, Tenhagen M, Turrado V, Vereczkei A, Vilallonga R, Deelder JD, Bonjer J (2016) Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis EAES consensus development conference 2015. Surg Endosc 30(11):4668–4690
American Society of Anesthesiologists (2018) Practice advisory for the prevention of perioperative peripheral neuropathies 2018: an updated report by the American Society Of Anesthesiologists task force on prevention of perioperative peripheral neuropathies. Anesthesiology 128(1):11–26
Acknowledgements
The members of the HerniaSurge group are as follows: Theo Aufenacker, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands; Fredrik Berrevoet, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Julia Bingener, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Thue Bisgaard, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Reinhard Bittner, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany; Kamil Bury, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland; Giampiero Campanelli, University of Insubria, Gruppo Ospedaliero San Donato, Milan, Italy; David Chen, Lichtenstein Amid Hernia Clinic at UCLA, Santa Monica, United States; Pradeep Chowbey, Max Superspeciality Hospital, New Delhi, India; Joachim Conze, Hernienzentrum, Munich, Germany; Diego Cuccurullo, A.O. Dei Colli Monaldi Hospital Naples, Naples, Italy; Andrew De Beaux, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; Hasan Eker, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Robert Fitzgibbons, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, United States; Rene Fortelny, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria; Jean Francois Gillion, Hôpital Privé d'Antony, Antony, France; Baukje Van den Heuvel, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Lars Jorgensen, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Uwe Klinge, University Hospital at the RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany; Ferdinand Köckerling, Vivantes Klinikum Spandau; Jan Kukleta, Klinik im Park, Zurich, Switzerland; Ibrahima Konate, University Gaston Berger, Saint Louis, Senegal; Liong Liem, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Davide Lomanto, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; Maarten Loos, Maxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands; Manuel Lopez-Cano, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain; Marc Miserez, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Mahesh Misra, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India; Agneta Montgomery, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Salvador Morales-Conde, University Hospital Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain; Filip Muysoms, Maria Middelares Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Henning Niebuhr, Hansechirurgie, Niebuhr Marleschki & Partner, Hamburg, Germany; Par Nordin, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Maciej Pawlak, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland; Gabrielle Van Ramshorst, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Wolfgang Reinpold, Hamburg University Hospital, Hamburg, Germany; David Sanders, North Devon District Hospital, Barnstaple, United Kingdom; Rachid Sani, Université Abdou Moumouni, Niamey, Niger; Nelleke Schouten, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Sam Smedberg, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden; Maciej Smietanski, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdańsk, Poland; Rogier Simmermacher, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Hanh Tran, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Arthur Wijsmuller, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Funding
For all authors none were declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Nadine van Veenendaal, Maarten Simons, and Sathien Tumtavitikul have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to close. William Hope has no conflicts of interest related to article, but received honorariums from CR Bard and WL Gore for consulting and research support. Jaap Bonjer received grants and personal fees from Medtronic, Johnson&Johnson, Olympus, Applied Medical, and Stryker, outside the submitted work.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The members of the HerniaSurge group are listed in Acknowledgements section.
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Veenendaal, N., Simons, M., Hope, W. et al. Consensus on international guidelines for management of groin hernias. Surg Endosc 34, 2359–2377 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07516-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07516-5