Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 15, 2025
Application of a New Mesh Fixation Method in Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair
Published on: December 23, 2022
Is previous prostatectomy a risk factor for postoperative complications following minimally invasive inguinal hernia
João P G Kasakewitch1, Carlos A Balthazar da Silveira2, Diego L Lima3
1Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Aim:
The literature indicates that patients with prior pelvic surgery, particularly radical prostatectomy, pose challenges in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR). However, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the impact of pelvic surgery on postoperative complications. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of previous prostatectomy in men undergoing MIS IHR.
Materials And Methods:
We searched Cochrane Central, Scopus, SciELO, Lilacs, and PubMed/MEDLINE for studies comparing men undergoing MIS IHR after prostatectomy with men without previous pelvic surgery. Key outcomes evaluated included recurrence, overall postoperative complications, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), conversion rates, and operative time.
Results:
Out of 402 screened studies, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, three analyzed totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique, while four analyzed transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and two presented both techniques together. The analysis comprised 189,183 patients, of which 4551 (2.4%) had a history of prostatectomy. The analysis revealed that post-prostatectomy patients presented higher postoperative complications (3.7% vs. 1.9%; RR 1.9; 95% CI [1.23; 2.94]; P = 0.004) and seroma (1.6% vs. 0.9%; RR 1.58; 95% CI [1.23; 2.04]; P < 0.001) following MIS IHR. Additionally, patients with a previous prostatectomy presented an increased operative time (MD 21.25 min; 95% CI [19.1; 23.4]; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in recurrence (0.98% vs. 0.92%; RR 1.1; 95% CI [0.8; 1.53]; P = 0.54), SSI (0.07% VS. 0.07%; RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.34; 2.9]; P = 0.98), hematoma (3.6% vs. 1.2%; RR 3.18; 95% CI [0.84; 12.1]; P = 0.09), and conversion rates (1.1% vs. 0.9%; RR 1.26; 95% CI [0.91; 1.72]; P = 0.16). However, subgroup analysis of TEP technique in patients with previous prostatectomy showed higher conversion rates (2.4% vs. 0%; RR 20; 95% CI [2.9; 138.2]; P < 0.01). Analysis using funnel plots showed the absence of publication bias in the study outcomes.
Conclusion:
This comprehensive analysis indicates that patients with a history of prostatectomy undergoing MIS IHR may present higher postoperative complications and an increased operative time. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the cumulative impact of MIS IHR in patients with previous prostatectomy.
