Introduction: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for postoperative inguinal hernia (IH) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to assess whether a newly developed prevention technique reduces the incidence of IH after RARP. Methods: We included 161 consecutive patients (322 groins) who underwent RARP between September 2011 and October 2013. The prevention technique was as follows: (1) sufficient incision of peritoneum around the internal inguinal ring; (2) separation of spermatic vessels; (3) dissection of vas deferens. Results: Postoperative IH occurred in 14 cases (19.4%) occurring in the observation group compared to 2 cases (2.2%) in the prevention group. Patent processus vaginalis (PPV) was the only risk factor. Time-to-event analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in IH incidence in the IH prevention group (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Our data reveal a higher incidence of IH after RARP, with the existence of PPV as the only identified risk factor. Our simple IH-prevention technique, which does not involve the use of artificial materials, appears safe and effective.

Keywords:
Inguinal hernia, Prostate cancer, Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
1.
Regan TC, Mordkin RM, Constantinople NL, et al: Incidence of inguinal hernias following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1996;47:536-537.
2.
Lodding P, Bergdahl C, Nyberg M, et al: 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 2001;166:946-967.
3.
Stranne J, Johansson E, Nilsson A, et al: Inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results from a randomized setting and a nonrandomized setting. Eur Urol 2010;58:719-726.
4.
Zhu S, Zhang H, Xie L, et al: Risk factors and prevention of inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2013;189:884-890.
5.
Nilsson H, Stranne J, Stattin P, et al: Incidence of groin hernia repair after radical prostatectomy: a population-based nationwide study. Ann Surg 2014;259:1223-1227.
6.
Abe T, Shinohara N, Harabayashi T, et al: Postoperative inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69:326-329.
7.
Ichioka K, Yoshimura K, Utsunomiya N, et al: High incidence of inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2004;63:278-281.
8.
Fujii Y, Yamamoto S, Yonese J, et al: A novel technique to prevent postradical retropubic prostatectomy inguinal hernia: the processus vaginalis transection method. Urology 2010;75:713-717.
9.
Taguchi K, Yasui T, Kubota H, et al: Simple method of preventing postoperative inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2010;76:1083-1087.
10.
Sakai Y, Okuno T, Kijima T, et al: Simple prophylactic procedure of inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy: isolation of the spermatic cord. Int J Urol 2009;16:848-851.
11.
Koike H, Matsui H, Morikawa Y, et al: Simple method for preventing inguinal hernias after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Prostate Int 2013;1:76-80.
12.
Yoshimine S, Miyajima A, Nakagawa K, et al: Extraperitoneal approach induces postoperative inguinal hernia compared with transperitoneal approach after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010;40:349-352.
13.
Lee DH, Jung HB, Chung MS, et al: Patent processus vaginalis in adults who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: predictive signs of postoperative inguinal hernia in the internal inguinal floor. Int J Urol 2013;20:177-182.
14.
Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH et al: A simple procedure to prevent postoperative inguinal hernia after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a plugging method of the internal inguinal floor for patients with patent processus vaginalis. J Urol 2014;191:468-472.
15.
Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Touijer K, et al: Predictors of inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2011;77:391-395.
16.
Allan C, Ilic D: Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urol Int 2016;96:373-378.
17.
Ichioka K, Kohei N, Yoshimura K, et al: Impact of retraction of vas deferens in postradical prostatectomy inguinal hernia. Urology 2007;70:511-514.
18.
Nielsen ME, Walsh PC: Systematic detection and repair of subclinical inguinal hernias at radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2005;66:1034-1037.
19.
Stranne J, Aus G, Bergdahl S, et al: Post-radical prostatectomy inguinal hernia: a simple surgical intervention can substantially reduce the incidence - results from a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2010;184:984-989.
20.
Fujii Y, Yamamoto S, Yonese J, et al: The processus vaginalis transection method to prevent postradical prostatectomy inguinal hernia: long-term results. Urology 2014;83:247-252.
21.
Lee DK, Montgomery DP, Porter JR: Concurrent transperitoneal repair for incidentally detected inguinal hernias during robotically assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 2013;82:1320-1322.
22.
Marien T, Taouli B, Telegrafi S, et al: Optimizing the detection of subclinical inguinal hernias in men undergoing open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010;106:1468-1472.
23.
Sekita N, Suzuki H, Kamijima S, et al: Incidence of inguinal hernia after prostate surgery: open radical retropubic prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate. Int J Urol 2009;16:110-113.
24.
Nomura T, Mimata H, Kitamura H, et al: Lower incidence of inguinal hernia: minilaparotomy radical retropubic prostatectomy compared with conventional technique. A preliminary report. Urol Int 2005;74:32-37.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.