Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
There has always been a need to perform an inguinal hernia repair without mesh, i.e., tissue repair. These repairs are typically performed in an open, anterior fashion and include techniques as described by Shouldice, Bassini, and McVay.
The open preperitoneal posterior approach for inguinal hernia repair was first described by Cheatle in 1920 and later by others. This repair was refined and best described in detail as an established technique by Dr. Lloyd Nyhus in 1959. Nyhus himself eventually abandoned this technique for a mesh-based preperitoneal technique, which is the precursor to the current laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs with mesh.
With the advent of robotic technology and roticulating instruments, many procedures that can be performed in an open fashion but are technically difficult to perform laparoscopically can be replicated with the robot. The posterior approach to inguinal hernia repair is one such procedure. We have termed this as the robotic iliopubic tract (r-IPT) repair. We performed the first r-IPT repair in 2015 and publicly shared our technique in 2016. As originally described, this is a tension-based closure of the indirect and direct spaces.
At this time, we believe that r-IPT repair is best applied to small- or medium-sized inguinal hernias. It is not an appropriate repair technique to address femoral hernia. Common indications for r-IPT repair are listed in Table 8.1 . The ideal candidate for r-IPT repair is a patient undergoing a separate robotic procedure who is not a candidate for mesh-based inguinal hernia repair. For example, the patient may have a strangulated inguinal hernia requiring intestinal resection. With the robotic approach, the intestinal resection can be completed, followed by a tissue-based preperitoneal r-IPT repair. Another example is during robotic removal of preperitoneal inguinal mesh, such as for mesh infection, chronic pain (e.g., meshoma), or mesh reaction. Once the mesh is removed, redo mesh repair may be contraindicated or the patient may be unwilling to undergo another mesh-based repair.
INDICATIONS |
Small inguinal hernia |
Indirect inguinal hernia |
Direct inguinal hernia |
Bilateral inguinal hernias |
Mesh allergy |
Concomitant with posterior mesh removal |
Contaminated case |
Contraindication to mesh implantation |
CONTRAINDICATIONS |
Femoral hernia |
RELATIVE CONTRAINDICATIONS |
Large or scrotal inguinal hernia |
Recurrent inguinal hernia |
Some patients may have a mesh reaction or mesh allergy; some may be at high risk for mesh reaction, allergy, or mesh-related chronic pain. These patients tend to be very thin and are often females. Other risks include autoimmune disorders and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. In these situations, the use of mesh is relatively contraindicated. r-IPT repair is a minimally invasive option for their inguinal hernia repair, in comparison with the standard open anterior approach. It may be especially preferred for bilateral inguinal hernias, similar to the preference of laparoscopic repair with mesh over open repair with mesh for bilateral inguinal hernias.
Preoperative preparation for r-IPT repair is similar to that for any other robotic operation. The patient must be deemed a safe candidate for general anesthesia. Also, in the case of elective hernia repair, major reversible risk factors for hernia recurrence, including chronic cough, constipation, morbid obesity, and prostatism, should be addressed. As a femoral hernia cannot be repaired with this approach, such a diagnosis should be ruled out prior to r-IPT repair.
The patient is placed supine, with the arms padded and tucked to the sides. We recommend that the patient be placed flat and not in lithotomy, as any hip flexion may result in an inadvertently tight tissue repair. As with other pelvic operations, we recommend urinary catheterization to reduce the risk of bladder injury. The sterile preparation should include the entire anterior abdomen as well as the genital organs in case they need to be accessed intraoperatively. The patient is then placed in the Trendelenburg position.
We currently utilize the da Vinci Xi system. Prior to docking, the face of the patient must be protected from potential interaction with the arms of the robot ( Fig. 8.1 ). The robot is docked to the side of the patient; this can be either perpendicular to the bed, at an acute angle to the feet of the patient, or parallel to the feet of the patient.
Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles
If you are a member. Log in here