Search

Background: Patient and public involvement in research was introduced a few decades ago. However, there is still a lack of knowledge of the degree of patient involvement, particularly in surgical research. The aim of this review was to characterize the use of patient/public involvement in contemporary surgical research and to describe how patients were involved, if they gained authorships, and which countries studies came from. Methods: In this scoping review, original studies and reviews about surgery were included that had patient/ public involvement regarding study planning, conducting the study, and/or revising the manuscript. Screening was performed in the issues from 2021 of five general medicine journals with high‑impact factors, also classically called “the big five,” and in the ten surgical journals with the highest impact factor. Results: Of the 808 studies, 12 studies from three journals had patient involvement, corresponding to 1.7%. Patients were involved as participants in nine of the studies either in the designing of the study and/or in revising or approving the protocol; and in four studies in revising and/or approving the manuscript. One patient fulfilled the ICMJE authorship criteria and received a group authorship. Studies with patient involvement originated from six countries namely, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, USA, and UK; with five studies from the UK. Conclusion: Patient involvement is very low in contemporary surgical research. It is primarily in the study planning phase, authorship is almost non‑existent and few countries publish such studies.

Purpose: A perineal hernia is a subtype of pelvic floor hernias, and especially primary perineal hernias are rare. No guideline exists on how to handle this type of hernia. Therefore, the primary aim of this scoping review was to investigate the surgical treatment options in adults for primary perineal hernias. Methods: This systematic scoping review included studies with original data on at least one adult operated for a primary perineal hernia. Studies from 1990 and forward were included to cover contemporary surgical techniques. Three databases were systematically searched: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Furthermore, a snowball search was performed. The primary outcome was to narratively present details about the surgical techniques. The secondary outcomes were to give an overview of symptoms, diagnostics, intraoperative complications, and postoperative course. Results: Twenty-two case studies reported repairs on 22 patients suffering from primary perineal hernia. Common symptoms were pain and discomfort, and a bulge was often found during physical examination. Different diagnostic methods were used, and MRI-scans most often found an abnormality. Different surgical procedures can repair the condition, however, laparotomy and the use of a permanent mesh was the most common option. Far from all studies reported on outcomes, but no severe intraoperative event was reported, and the postoperative course was overall uneventful. Conclusion: Primary perineal hernia is a very rare condition presenting with pain/discomfort and bulging and it can be visualized with different imaging modalities. Laparotomy with a permanent mesh was often used for repair, and the postoperative course was mostly uneventful.

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the inheritance of groin hernias. Methods: The primary outcome was to assess the inheritance based on the family history of groin hernias. We included studies that reported family history in patients with groin hernias, assessed the development of groin hernias in patients with a positive family history, or assessed the development of groin hernias in twins. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL in November 2021. Results were synthesized narratively and with meta-analyses. Results: Twenty-two studies with unique participants were included. While two twin studies did not show convincing results of a genetic origin in children, database studies with low risk of bias showed that a positive history in parents or siblings increased the risk of inguinal hernia in children, and the risk was highest between mothers and daughters and between sisters. In adults, patients with inguinal hernia had higher odds of having a positive family history compared with patients without groin hernia (odds ratio 5.3, 95% confidence interval 3.3–8.7), and a nationwide study found the highest risk of inguinal hernia repair when a sister had been repaired compared with a brother. This study also found that having a sibling repaired for a groin hernia increased the risk of femoral hernia repair. Conclusion: Despite studies being heterogeneous, there is overwhelming evidence that a positive family history is a risk factor for developing inguinal hernia in both children and adults, seemingly with a pronounced female–female inheritance pattern.

Purpose: The most recent international guideline on inguinal hernia management recommends a short convalescence after repair. However, surgeons’ recommendations may vary. The objective of this study was to give an overview of the current convalescence recommendations in the literature subdivided on the Lichtenstein and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. Methods: In this systematic review, three databases were searched in August 2021 to identify studies on inguinal hernia repairs with a statement about postoperative convalescence recommendations. The outcome was convalescence recommendations subdivided on daily activities, light work, heavy lifting, and sport. Results: In total, 91 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, and 50 and 58 studies reported about convalescence recommendations after Lichtenstein and laparoscopic repairs, respectively. Patients were instructed with a wide range of convalescence recommendations. A total of 34 Lichtenstein studies and 35 laparoscopic studies recommended resumption of daily activities as soon as possible. Following Lichtenstein repairs, the patients were instructed to resume light work after median 0 days (interquartile range (IQR) 0–0), heavy lifting after 42 days (IQR 14–42), and sport after 7 days (IQR 0–29). Following laparoscopic procedures, the patients were instructed to resume light work after median 0 days (IQR 0–0), heavy lifting after 14 days (IQR 10–28), and sport after 12 days (IQR 7–23). Conclusion: This study revealed a broad spectrum of convalescence recommendations depending on activity level following inguinal hernia repair, which likely reflects a lack of high-quality evidence within this field.

Purpose: Cord lipomas can clinically resemble groin hernias and missed cord lipomas can potentially result in persistent symptoms. However, no international guideline exists concerning the management of cord lipomas found during inguinal hernia surgery. This study aimed to gain insight into how surgeons typically manage cord lipomas found during inguinal hernia surgery. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all general surgeons in Denmark performing unsupervised laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and Lichtenstein repair. The survey contained questions about demographic details and questions about how surgeons would handle cord lipomas. The questionnaire was created by the research team and face-validated on general surgeons. Results: A total of 58 surgeons (60%) responded to the questionnaire. The majority agreed that cord lipomas should not be left untouched. During laparoscopic repairs, 53% of the surgeons recommended that cord lipomas should be resected and removed if the anatomical circumstances allowed it. During Lichtenstein repair, the surgeons recommended that cord lipomas should always be resected and removed (49%) or that resection should depend on the size of the lipoma (44%). Conclusion: When asking surgeons about their preferred handling of cord lipomas, they answered that the management of cord lipomas found during inguinal hernia surgery depends on anatomical circumstances such as the pedicle appearance, the lipoma mobility, and its size. If the cord lipoma is left untouched, the patients’ hernia resembling symptoms could persist, why the surgeons predominantly preferred to resect and remove cord lipomas.

BACKGROUND: Urinary retention and mortality after open repair of inguinal hernia may depend on the type of anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to investigate possible differences in urinary retention and mortality in adults after Lichtenstein repair under different types of anaesthesia.METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in the Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases, with the last search on 1 August 2018. Eligible studies included adult patients having elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair by the Lichtenstein technique under local, regional or general anaesthesia. Outcomes were urinary retention and mortality, which were compared between the three types of anaesthesia using meta-analyses and a network meta-analysis.RESULTS: In total, 53 studies covering 11 683 patients were included. Crude rates of urinary retention were 0·1 (95 per cent c.i. 0 to 0·2) per cent for local anaesthesia, 8·6 (6·6 to 10·5) per cent for regional anaesthesia and 1·4 (0·6 to 2·2) per cent for general anaesthesia. No death related to the type of anaesthesia was reported. The network meta-analysis showed a higher risk of urinary retention after both regional (odds ratio (OR) 15·73, 95 per cent c.i. 5·85 to 42·32; P < 0·001) and general (OR 4·07, 1·07 to 15·48; P = 0·040) anaesthesia compared with local anaesthesia, and a higher risk after regional compared with general anaesthesia (OR 3·87, 1·10 to 13·60; P = 0·035). Meta-analyses showed a higher risk of urinary retention after regional compared with local anaesthesia (P < 0·001), but no difference between general and local anaesthesia (P = 0·08).CONCLUSION: Local or general anaesthesia had significantly lower risks of urinary retention than regional anaesthesia. Differences in mortality could not be assessed as there were no deaths after elective Lichtenstein repair. Registration number: CRD42018087115 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

Purpose: Performing two anterior or two posterior inguinal hernia repairs in the same groin contradict guidelines. Nevertheless, there can be indications for using the same approach at reoperation, and information on complications other than the risk of a third repair and chronic pain is lacking in the literature. The aim was to assess intraoperative events and postoperative complications after two Lichtenstein repairs or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs in the same groin. Methods: This nationwide cohort study included patients that had received two Lichtenstein repairs (Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein) or two laparoscopic (Laparoscopy–Laparoscopy) inguinal hernia repairs in the same groin. Patients were identified in the Danish Hernia Database and outcomes were identified in medical records during a period of 6 years. Outcomes were intraoperative events that deviated from a standard repair and 1-year postoperative complications classified according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Outcomes were reported separately for the two cohorts. Results: Among the included 102 Lichtenstein reoperations, 27% of the repairs had intraoperative events, with drain placement being most common (10%). Half of the reoperations resulted in complications where infection (15%) and hematoma (12%) were most frequent. Among the 58 laparoscopic reoperations, 16% had an intraoperative event where bleeding requiring clips was most common (10%). Half of the reoperations resulted in a complication with surgery in general anesthesia in the same groin area being the most frequent complication (9%). Conclusions: Intraoperative events and 1-year postoperative complications were high for both Lichtenstein–Lichtenstein and Laparoscopy–Laparoscopy, and the results therefore support guidelines that recommend another approach at reoperation.