Lichtenstein Repair and Intersurgeon Variations: A Textbook Review and Multicenter Surgeon Survey

Background and Objectives: A surgical method is rarely very effective and simple to perform. A Lichtenstein Repair (LR) is one such exception. Because of the very high incidence of inguinal hernia, LR has become the global gold standard in inguinal hernia repair-not only due to its relative simplicity and reproducibility but also because it can be performed under local anesthesia. These attributes facilitated its worldwide adoption, including in underdeveloped and resource limited settings. Today, many variations are performed under the common name "Lichtenstein Repair". The extent to which these modifications influence outcomes-particularly recurrence and chronic pain-remains unclear. Materials and Methods: To evaluate reasons for variation in the LR technique, a literature review of seven major surgery textbooks was performed. In addition, a questionnaire comprising 17 questions addressing the key steps of the LR was sent to 90 surgeons across 19 different hospitals in Austria (6) and Slovenia (13). The questionnaire focused on core principles described by Lichtenstein and later refined by his successors. The overall response rate was 78%. Results: Descriptions of the LR in major hernia textbooks vary substantially, partly due to the evolution of the technique over time and partly because any subaponeurotic anterior-canal mesh repair is often labeled as "Lichtenstein". Survey responses demonstrated considerable variation and lack of standardization or uniformity in several critical steps of the LR. More than 50% of respondents reported using pre-formed meshes that they excessively trim, limiting adequate coverage of the inguinal region. Furthermore, routine patient follow-up is lacking in the majority of cases. Conclusions: The contemporary umbrella term "Lichtenstein Repair" encompasses many different anterior mesh techniques. While some surgeon-specific preferences may not compromise integrity, strict adherence to the evidence-based key principles of the original repair remains essential to minimize recurrences and chronic inguinal pain. Standardization with meticulous adherence to the key principles of the LR is critical to ensure the data submitted into registries, RCTs, and meta-analyses are accurate, comparable, and meaningful.