Treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia after TransInguinal PrePeritoneal (TIPP) surgery: feasibility and outcomes in a case series

Background TransInguinal PrePeritoneal (TIPP) inguinal hernia repair (IHR) combines an open anterior approach with a preperitoneal position of the mesh. Advantages include reduced chronic postoperative inguinal pain, low recurrence rates and quick recovery. Critics have expressed concerns that recurrent IHR after TIPP could be difficult and with an increased risk of complications due to the formation of scar tissue in both the anterior and posterior anatomical inguinal planes. This study reports feasibility and outcomes of recurrent IHR after TIPP repair. Methods Patients who underwent recurrent IHR after TIPP between January 2013 and January 2015 in a single hernia-dedicated teaching hospital were included. Exclusion criteria were femoral hernia, incarcerated hernia and reasons for unreliable follow-up. Electronic medical records were assessed retrospectively to register surgical outcomes and complications. Results Thirty-three patients underwent surgical repair of recurrent inguinal hernia after TIPP. Twenty patients were treated with a “re-TIPP when possible” strategy; resulting in 13 successful re-TIPPs and 7 conversions to Lichtenstein repair. Eleven patients underwent a primary Lichtenstein’s repair, the remaining two patients underwent recurrent IHR using other techniques (TransREctus sheath PrePeritoneal and TransAbdominal PrePeritoneal repair). Mean time of surgery was 44.7 min (standard deviation 16.7). There was one patient (3.0%) with a re-recurrent inguinal hernia during follow-up. Other minor complications included urinary tract infection. Conclusion These results indicate that after TIPP it is feasible and safe to perform re-surgery for recurrent inguinal hernia with an anterior approach again. For these recurrences, a Lichtenstein repair can be performed, or a "re-TIPP if possible" strategy can be applied by experienced TIPP surgeons, tailored to the intraoperative findings. Whether a re-TIPP has advantages over Lichtenstein should be evaluated in a prospective manner.