Urology
Volume 66, Issue 5 , Pages 1034-1037, November 2005

Systematic detection and repair of subclinical inguinal hernias at radical retropubic prostatectomy

  • Matthew E. Nielsen

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Mathew E. Nielsen, M.D., James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287-2101
  • ,
  • Patrick C. Walsh

James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

Received 30 March 2005; accepted 11 May 2005.

Abstract 

Objectives

Inguinal hernias occur in 15% of men within 1 to 2 years after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). This suggests that many of these hernias may have been present at surgery, but not diagnosed. Beginning in September 2001, all patients undergoing RRP were carefully examined intraoperatively for the presence of a hernia or a dilated internal inguinal ring. In this study we define the frequency of inguinal hernias detected at RRP and the durability of repair.

Methods

Between September 2001 and December 2004, 430 patients underwent RRP by one surgeon. Hernias, detected in 142 men (33%), were repaired preperitoneally: direct hernias were repaired with mesh and indirect hernias with 2-0 Prolene suture. The patients were followed up for an average of 19 months (range 9 to 36). Information on postoperative hernia status was available for 315 men (73.3%).

Results

Of the 430 patients, 142 (33%) had hernias repaired at RRP. Of these hernias, 32% were right sided, 28% left sided, and 40% bilateral; 34% were direct hernias and 66% indirect. Of the 142 patients who underwent intraoperative hernia repair, 95 (67%) had follow-up data, and 5 (5.3%) of that group developed a hernia postoperatively. None of the hernias repaired at RRP recurred. Recurrent hernias on the side of the repair occurred in 3.1%.

Conclusions

Incidental inguinal hernias were commonly found (33%) at RRP. Two thirds of the defects detected were indirect. Clinical recurrence after repair was rare.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0090-4295(05)00694-1

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.028

Urology
Volume 66, Issue 5 , Pages 1034-1037, November 2005