Complications in TAPP Hernia Repair


Minor

Haematoma, port-site infection, pneumonia, intestinal paralysis, early acute pain, urinary retention/ infection, seroma

Major

Bladder injury, bowel injury, small bowel obstruction, big vessel injury, haemorrhage, mesh infection, trocar hernias, chronic pain, ischaemic orchitis and recurrence





7.2.2 In Relation to Causality












Nonspecific

Related to e.g. general anaesthesia, OR table, burns

Laparoscopy

Access related, pneumoperitoneum related

Dissection technique

Vascular, nervous, organ injury, acute and chronic pain

Mesh

Infection, shrinkage, migration, recurrence, pain

Fixation

Acute and chronic pain, recurrence

Surgeon

Poor knowledge, poor orientation, poor performance
 


7.2.3 In Relation to Time


Intraoperative, early postoperative, late postoperative complications.

In his book “Chirurgie der Leistenhernie”, Bittner et al. (2006) published the incidence of intraoperative, early postoperative and late postoperative complications on a large collective of patients undergoing a TAPP repair of uncomplicated primary unilateral and bilateral hernias.


7.2.4 Intraoperative Complications








































n = 11,037

Bleeding (parietal, intra-abdominal)

0.31 %
 

Bladder injury

0.0 %

(0.09 %)

Bowel injury

0.0 %

(0.1 %)

Lesion of spermatic duct and vessels

0.02 %
 

Nerve injury (cutaneous femoral lateral)

0.26 %
 

Late (forced) conversion

0.0 %
 

Total
 
(0.83 %)

The numbers in brackets reflect all the hernia repairs performed including the complicated hernias too (recurrence, after preperitoneal repair open or laparoscopic, incarcerated or irreducible hernias, scrotal hernias and hernias after open prostatectomy or bladder surgery).

Some intraoperative complications may be specific for TAPP repair like visceral or bowel injuries, some may be addressed to general anaesthesia (circulatory complications, hypercarbia) and some result from incorrect dissection or misinterpretation of the local anatomy or too generous use of monopolar cautery.


7.2.5 Early Postoperative Complications





























n = 11,037

Urinary retention

0.42 %

Haemorrhage

0.26 %

Wound infection

0.054 %

Mesh infection

0.09 %

Small bowel obstruction

0.036 %

Orchitis, epididymitis

0.09 %


7.2.6 Late Postoperative Complications




































n = 11,037

Chronic pain

0.045 %
 

Seroma persistence, pseudohernia

0.05 %
 

Testicular atrophy

0.05 %
 

Ileus

0.0 %

(0.03 %)

Recurrence

0.69 %
 

Trocar hernia

0.56 %
 

The overall complication rate in this huge series is very low and reflects an immense experience of a dedicated team with a very high caseload (>1000/year). Under average conditions including teaching institutions, we have to assume that the true complication rate is much higher. The impact of experience as demonstrated by the same team shows how important is the standardisation of a new procedure, improving the operative skills, improving the anatomical knowledge and adhering strictly to the principals of minimal invasiveness in any TAPP hernia repair. In other reports from the early days of TAPP, one can recognise the same phenomenon of injuries to nervus cutaneus femoris lateralis due to imperfect knowledge of anatomy.




























Impact of experience

OP 1–600

OP > 600

Nerve injury

1.5 %

0.19 %

Bleeding

0.6 %

0.23 %

Testicular atrophy

0.3 %

0.06 %

Recurrence rate

4.8 %

0.41 %



7.3 Access-Related Complications (Phase 1)


To perform a TAPP repair, it needs the insufflation of 2–4 lt. of CO2 to lift and expand the anterior abdominal wall to maintain the working space. This step carries a substantial risk of an injury to intra-abdominal structures.

Which is the safest and most effective method of establishing pneumoperitoneum and obtaining access to the abdominal cavity?

The safest and most efficient method of access is still controversial [14]. There are four ways on how to obtain access to the abdominal cavity:

(1) Open access (Hasson) (2) Veress needle to create pneumoperitoneum and trocar insertion without visual control (3) Direct trocar insertion (without previous pneumoperitoneum) (4) Visual entry with or without previous gas insufflation [712].


IEHS Guidelines 2011 [13]

Statements

Level 1A

There is no definitive evidence that the open-entry technique for establishing pneumoperitoneum is superior or inferior to the other techniques currently available.

Level 1B

In thin patients (BMI < 27), the direct trocar insertion is a safe alternative to the Veress needle technique.

Level 2C

Establishing pneumoperitoneum to gain access to the abdominal cavity represents a potential risk of parietal, intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal injury. Patients after previous laparotomy, obese patients and very thin patients are at a higher risk.

Level 3

Waggling of the Veress needle from side to side must be avoided, because this can enlarge a 1.6-mm puncture injury to an injury of up to 1 cm in viscera or blood vessels.

Level 4

The various Veress needle safety tests or checks provide insufficient information on the placement of the Veress needle. The initial gas pressure when starting insufflation is a reliable indicator of correct intraperitoneal placement of the Veress needle. Left upper quadrant (LUQ, Palmer’s) laparoscopic entry may be successful in patients with suspected or known periumbilical adhesions or history or presence of umbilical hernia or after three failed insufflation attempts at the umbilicus.

Recommendations

Grade A

When establishing pneumoperitoneum to gain access to the abdominal cavity, extreme caution is required. Be aware of the risk of injury. The open access should be utilised as an alternative to the Veress needle technique, especially in patients after previous open abdominal surgery.


IEHS Update 2014 [14]

New statements—identical to previous except statement below.

Level 1B

In thin patients (BMI < 27), the direct trocar insertion is a safe alternative to the Veress needle technique (stronger evidence).

New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendation below.

Grade C

The direct trocar insertion (DTI) can be used in order to establish pneumoperitoneum as a safe alternative to Veress needle, Hasson approach or optical trocar, if patient’s risk factors are considered and the surgeon is appropriately trained (new recommendation) [10].

Amongst general surgeons and gynaecologists, the most popular method is the Veress needle [1]. Although the open approach seems to be the safest, it does not eliminate the entire risk of injury [5, 6] (level 2C). When using open approach palpation through the peritoneal aperture, to exclude adhesions is mandatory before inserting a blunt cannula [6].

From Catarci et al. [5]





















































N
 
12,919 patients

Method

Veress + 1st trocar

82 %
 
Hasson

9 %
 
Optical trocar

9 %

Damage

Major vascular injury

0.05 %
 
Visceral lesions

0.06 %
 
Minor vascular injury

0.07 %
 
Overall morbidity

0.18 %

Hasson
 
0.09 %

Veress + 1st trocar
 
0.18 %

Optical trocar
 
0.29 %


7.4 Trocar-Related Complications


Further development of trocar design, from cutting instrument (to diminish the necessary penetrating force) towards the dilating instrument, has reduced the complication rate of parietal (or intra-abdominal) haemorrhage and the risk of developing a trocar hernia.


















Trocar parietal haemorrhage

Cutting trocar

1.76 %

Conical trocar

0.056 %
 
p > 0.0001



















Trocar hernia

Cutting trocar

1.27 %

Conical trocar

0.037 %
 
p > 0.0001


Chirurgie der Leistenhernie, Bittner et al., 2006

According to IEHS Guidelines and its Update, cutting trocars should not be used anymore. The use of 10 mm trocars or larger may predispose to hernias, especially in the umbilical region or in the oblique abdominal wall (stronger evidence) (level 2B). Therefore, fascial defects of 10 mm or bigger should be closed (stronger evidence) (grade B).

Concerning the closure of trocar wounds ≥10 mm, I believe in closing the peritoneal layer too. The reason is the obvious difference in trocar hernia incidence in TAPP and TEP repair.


7.5 Dissection-Related Complications (Phase 2)


Poor knowledge of anatomy, not recognising the structures, wrong use of energy sources, impatience, lack of skills or too difficult dissection (e.g. after previous surgery) [16, 17] may lead to injury of big vessels, nerves, bowel, bladder, spermatic cord or spermatic vessels.


Vessels “at risk”

Inferior epigastric, iliac and spermatic can be injured by the trocar, during the dissection or by fixing device.


Nerves “at risk”(0.3 %)

During the dissection of the landing zone, the genital branch of the genitofemoral nerve, the lateral femoral cutaneous and the femoral nerve can be directly sectioned, damaged by coagulation or fixation device (see fixation-related complications below). The latter can injure even the ilioinguinal or iliohypogastric nerve depending on penetration depth of the device.

Major nerve injuries after laparoscopic hernioplasty have been reported, but the risk of this complication appears to be extremely low. In the early days of TAPP, these injuries reflected the lack of knowledge of the local anatomy or indelicate dissection.

The “triangle of pain” (lateral of spermatic vessels and below the iliopubic tract) as an area of nerves at risk had to be enlarged to about 1.5–2 cm above the iliopubic tract thanks to the brilliant anatomic study of Reinpold.

The incidence of sensory changes after a TAPP repair seems to be ten times lower than after an open repair (p < 0.001) [15].


7.6 Visceral Injuries (Bladder, Intestine) 0.1 %



Keywords

Veress needle, First and second trocar, Lack of overview, Delayed thermic lesions, Previous abdominal surgery, Lack of experience

Entering the abdominal cavity (with or without previous surgery) and during the preperitoneal dissection, there is an instant risk of bowel or bladder injury. Half of the big vessel injuries were reported to be caused by the second trocar! That means under visual control! Lack of force coordination or even worse lack of concentration may lead easily to a major complication. It is a great advantage of TAPP when compared to TEP that the procedure starts with existing working space. To move the long instruments in this space without endangering the fragile structures within is a must, but it is an ability developed after many laparoscopic operations. Even in easy repairs, the concentration must be maintained from the insertion of Veress needle till the last skin suture.

The chance to “look back” (from preperitoneal space to intraperitoneal space) during the dissection of the landing zone, especially in triangle of doom and triangle of pain, lets the operator control the bowel behind. Steeper Trendelenburg position may bring the bowel in safe distance.

Despite the fact that a urinary catheter is in general not recommended, in some complicated cases it may be of great value. Dissection after open prostatectomy or after previous prosthetic preperitoneal repair may become quite difficult. Not only the empty bladder, but the possibility of retrograde instillation (e.g. methylene blue) may be advantageous to detect and control eventual bladder injury.

In case of necessary adhesiolysis, any suspicion of serosal lesion must be scrutinised. Oversewn serosa tear is more secure than a missed one.

The adhesiolysis of hernia content is not advisable. The hernia sac (e.g. in sliding hernias) is mobilised in toto with the content during the preperitoneal dissection.

The most dangerous condition is the unrecognised enterotomy or delayed enterotomy. The latter mostly caused by inappropriate use of monopolar cautery with consecutive tissue necrosis and delayed onset of postoperative peritonitis. Therefore, even after an easy procedure, stay alert to any unusual symptom after a laparoscopic hernia repair.


7.7 Seroma, Haematoma 0.29–4 %



Keywords

Pseudo-recurrence, Hernia size, Hernia type, Rare reoperation 0.46 %, Aspiration seldom necessary [20].

The bigger the hernia sac is, the bigger the chance of development of a seroma formation.

In large indirect sacs, the recommended complete retraction may lead to higher incidence of haematomas and may compromise the blood supply to the testicle. The transection of the indirect sac and leaving the distal portion open shows higher incidence of seromas and may lead in later course to development of a pseudo-hydrocoele. Fixing the distal portion to the abdominal wall lateral to epigastric vessels seems to help to avoid the occurrence of seromas [26].

In larger direct hernias (M2-3), the incidence of seromas can be significantly reduced by inversion of transversalis fascia and fixation to Cooper’s ligament with tacks [18, 19] or using an Endoloop [24, 25]. This step diminishes the dead space for seroma formation but additionally obliterates the potential of mesh dislocation into previous hernia space.

Inversion of the transversalis fascia is associated with a statistically lower incidence of postoperative seroma, without increasing postoperative pain despite the use of one or two additional tacks [19].


Update IEHS

New statements—identical to previous except statement below.

Level 4

Alternatively to fixation of the extended fascia transversalis to Copper’s ligament, the direct inguinal hernia defect can be closed by a pre-tied suture loop. (new statement).

New recommendations—identical to previous except recommendation below.

Grade D

As an alternative, the primary closure of direct inguinal hernia defects with a pre-tied suture loop can be used (new recommendation).


New Literature [24]

Prospective study, 250 patients, , 94 direct hernias, 76 were M2 or M3, were treated with ligation of the everted direct sac with PDS Endoloop [24]. 1.3 % residual seroma at 3 months, no chronic groin pain and no hernia recurrence after a median follow-up of 18 months.

Conclusion: The primary closure of direct inguinal hernia defects with a pre-tied suture loop during endoscopic TEP repair is safe, efficient and very reliable for the prevention of postoperative seroma formation, without increasing the risk of developing chronic groin pain or hernia recurrence.


7.8 Urinary Retention: POUR 0.42–3.1 %


POUR is probably of multifactorial origin. There is no general indication for preoperative catheterisation, and there are no clear predictive factors for postoperative retention. It is advisable that the patient empties the bladder before surgery. Full urinary bladder during a TAPP repair increases the risk of a bladder injury and can make the dissection even more difficult. In patients with expected technical difficulties (after previous abdominal, prostatic or bladder surgery) or extended operating time (bilateral scrotal, in learning curve), preoperative catheterisation should be considered.

Postoperative urinary retention is more frequent in endoscopic repairs (under general anaesthesia – GA) then in open hernia repairs under local anaestesia, possibly due to inhibitory effect of GA on bladder function [27].

Urinary retention may significantly prolong the hospital stay. With consequent approach towards possible POUR—preoperative emptying, restrictive fluid management in the early postoperative phase, early mobilisation and refrain from opioids—the incidence of retention can be as low as 0.5 % [28].


7.9 Testicular Problems 0.15 %



7.9.1 Testicular Atrophy (0.04–0.09 %)



Keywords

Testicular pain, Hydrocoele, Ischemic orchitis, Venous congestion, Nerve irritations, Leaving the indirect sack in situ


7.9.2 How to Avoid Testicular Problems?


The early postoperative tenderness of testis is often related to dissectional trauma or just irritation of genital branch of the genitofemoral nerve. Gentle dissection in correct plane with preservation of spermatic fascia protects the nerve; prudent use of monopolar cautery is most probably safer than incomplete haemostasis. Separating peritoneum from spermatic cord and vessels (parietalisation) seems to be easier if these structures were lifted by the nondominant instrument and the peritoneum pulled down by the dominant instrument. However, this is absolutely not necessary; there is always a way to grasp adjacent tissue to facilitate this step and avoid any possible injury to spermatic structures. The “no touch technique” is our policy.

Another possible reason for testicular pain was the lateral slit in mesh in order to pass the lower tail under the cord and vessels and close it again with the upper tail (analog Lichtenstein). The idea of slitting the mesh was to prevent the dislocation of the low lateral corner above the triangle of pain. The solution to this is a generous parietalisation and a non-penetrating fixation with fibrin sealant or cyanoacrylate glue. Late transection of spermatic duct caused by shrinkage of a slit mesh was published. The IEHS Guidelines do not recommend slitting the mesh (see below).


7.10 Mesh-Related Complications



7.10.1 Mesh Shrinkage



7.10.1.1 Factor Mesh Material vs. Mesh Construction


Not only variable polymers (polypropylene PP, polyester PE, polytetrafluoroethylene PTFE or polyvinylidene fluoride PVDF) but the mesh product itself induces different behaviour of the recipient after the mesh is implanted. Mesh size, its strength, total foreign body weight, porosity (the most important property), shrinkage rate, bridging and flexural rigidity may influence the final outcome.

The microporous meshes (most often heavyweight meshes) show an excessive shrinkage rate (compression by the scar tissue formation as a consequence of a strong inflammatory foreign body reaction). The most modern mesh products are macroporous. The difference between the macroporous lightweight meshes and the microporous heavyweight meshes in form of less local discomfort, chronic pain or a foreign body feeling could not be demonstrated in any study of TAPP or TEP repair.


7.10.2 Mesh Infections


Mesh infections in TAPP are nearly inexistent, but anecdotic reports were published [2932].


7.10.3 Recurrence TAPP 0.27–3.7 %



7.10.3.1 Reasons for Recurrence




Technique



  • Lack of experience


  • Insufficient extent of dissection


  • Missed hernia


  • Preperitoneal lipoma


  • Suboptimal mesh placement


  • Inappropriate retention/fixation


  • Mesh lifted by haematoma


  • Inferior lateral mesh edge lifted at closure


Material



  • Microporous mesh


  • Heavyweight mesh/excessive shrinkage


  • Size to small


  • Insufficient overlap in relation to shrinkage


  • Mesh slit


  • Mesh protrusion


Risk Factors



  • Collagen disease


  • Smoking


  • Obesity


  • Malnutrition


  • Diabetes Type ll


  • Chronic lung disease


  • Coagulopathy


  • Steroids


  • Radiotherapy, chemotherapy


  • Jaundice


  • Male gender


  • Anaemia

The most important causes of recurrence after a TAPP repair are avoidable. Small mesh, insufficient extent of dissection, incorrect mesh placement, slotted mesh, missed lipoma, sliding retroperitoneal fat, insufficient fixation, non-fixation in a wrong indication, all of them being a technical underestimation of a true problem rather than lack of knowledge [31, 36].

The recommended mesh size for TAPP repair is 15 × 10 cm or larger [14, 3335]. Smaller meshes are the most important cause of hernia recurrence today.

Mesh slit should have had prevented possible mesh dislocation, instead of that it increased the recurrence rate [33]. Leibl demonstrates that both small mesh size and the slit in mesh increased the risk for recurrence. Heikinnen [38] changes his policy in TAPP repair from Surgipro 6 × 10 cm to Prolene 10 × 14 cm and reduces his recurrence rate from 28 to 0 %. Felix [37] found in six patients with chronic testicular pain four patients with a keyholed mesh. It might be speculated whether the slit predisposed the nerve to injury or chronic irritation from the mesh.
























Phase 1

Slitted mesh, 13 × 8 cm

Cause of recurrence

Mesh too small

Recurrence rate

2.8 % slit region insufficient

Phase 2

Nonslotted, 15 × 10 cm

Cause of recurrence

Mesh dislocation

Recurrence rate

0.36 %


From Leibl et al. [33]


7.10.4 Pseudo-recurrence


Seroma in the early postoperative course maybe wrongly understood as a recurrence. Ultrasound helps to clarify. Overlooked lipoma in inguinal or femoral canal may present as a recurrence too and will most probably lead to a revision or removal through anterior approach after the nature of the local swelling was confirmed by MRI.

Protrusion of a lightweight mesh into a large direct defect is rare, but a true recurrence, despite the correct size and placement of the prosthetic material. In such situation, meshes with higher flexural rigidity are recommended.


7.10.5 Mesh Displacement, Erosion, Migration




A334927_1_En_7_Figa_HTML.gif

The most common reason for a mesh dislocation is its insufficient size and imperfect placement. The lower margin of the “landing zone” has to allow placing the mesh over psoas muscle without lifting up the low lateral mesh corner when closing the peritoneum. Penetrating fixation (staples, tackers, sutures, etc.) do not compensate for “incorrect” placement. Soft fixation (sealants and glues) may prevent an early movement and decrease the recurrence rate.

Excessive shrinkage of some meshes may also contribute to mesh displacement or to “meshoma” formation.

The few but true reports of late migration and erosion into adjacent organs stress again the importance of strict adherence to the rules of TAPP repair. These unusual complications seem to be the consequence of technical errors [3946].


7.11 Fixation-Related Complications



7.11.1 Haemorrhage, Injury to Nerves, Acute Pain, Chronic Pain, Recurrence


Knowledge of the local anatomy should eliminate the risk of injury of big- and medium-sized vessels during dissection or mesh fixation. Penetrating fixation seemed in the past to be necessary to prevent mesh dislocation. Over time, we have learned that mesh retention rather than fixation is only a temporary need, until host tissue ingrowth will take place. The macroporosity of the implant would support the ingrowth without pronounced shrinkage. This fact led to the introduction of fibrin sealant and glue fixation [7680, 8386].

Penetrating fixation does not compensate if the mesh is too small. Temptation to fix the mesh with tackers, staples or sutures in triangle of doom or triangle of pain can lead to disasters. For example, in order to prevent the dislocation of “the critical corner” causing a long-lasting neuropathy of genitofemoral nerve.

A334927_1_En_7_Fig1_HTML.gif



A spiral tack injuring genitofemoral nerve (Courtesy of Jorge Cervantes, Mexico)


A334927_1_En_7_Fig2_HTML.gif



Tack in pulmonary artery after TEP (Courtesy of Jorge Cervantes, Mexico)

There is a clear trend in TAPP and TEP repair towards soft fixation or non-fixation [4752].

Lovisetto [53] compared in a RCT staples vs. fibrin glue mesh fixation in TAPP repair. It shows a lower incidence of postoperative neuralgia and an earlier resumption of physical and social activities in patients with soft fixation.

Kapiris [22] publishes excellent recurrence rate of 0.16 % in a large cohort of TAPP repairs with 15 × 10 cm meshes and no fixation in a long follow-up.

Akolekar [54] shows a rise of recurrence rate in TEP repair with non-fixed meshes since the introduction of lightweight meshes. All above teams are experts in their discipline, so the simple technical errors are less probable.

There is probably more than just the mesh size and its rigidity. The size of the defect both in direct as well as indirect hernias shows even in open repairs the higher risk for recurrence.


7.12 Conversion 0.0–6.2 %


Conversions in TAPP are very rare. Hostile abdomen should be ruled out preoperatively as a relative contraindication for TAPP due to inadequate risk of bowel injury. However, even after uncomplicated appendectomy, cholecystectomy or C-section, one can encounter extensive omento-parietal adhesions. Depending on surgeon’s experience and the extent of adhesions, it is wise to convert early enough before damage is done. Unforced conversion to open anterior repair can lead to better results; forced conversion as an “ultima ratio” after serious injury lead to laparotomy and higher complications rate. Lack of overview can lead to missed enterotomy with all its consequences.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Sep 26, 2017 | Posted by in GENERAL & FAMILY MEDICINE | Comments Off on Complications in TAPP Hernia Repair

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access