Original Articles
 

By Dr. Hedley Roth , Dr. Dan Spernat , Dr. Yeng K Tay , Prof. Mark Frydenberg , Prof. Sree Appu
Corresponding Author Dr. Dan Spernat
Department of Urology The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Rd, - Australia 5011
Submitting Author Dr. Dan Spernat
Other Authors Dr. Hedley Roth
Monash Medical Centre, - Australia

Dr. Yeng K Tay
Monash Medical Centre, - Australia

Prof. Mark Frydenberg
Monash Medical Centre, - Australia

Prof. Sree Appu
Monash Medical Centre, - Australia

UROLOGY

Prostatectomy, Inguinal Hernia, Hernia, Laparoscopy

Roth H, Spernat D, Tay YK, Frydenberg M, Appu S. Radical Prostatectomy Does Not Increase the Risk of Inguinal Hernia. WebmedCentral UROLOGY 2012;3(10):WMC003763
doi: 10.9754/journal.wmc.2012.003763

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License(CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
No
Submitted on: 07 Oct 2012 05:49:10 AM GMT
Published on: 08 Oct 2012 06:57:11 PM GMT

Abstract


Introduction

Inguinal hernia has been reported to occur in 12 to 20% of patients after Radical Prostatectomy (RP). Herein we present our Australian experience with inguinal hernia (IH) risk post RP.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective audit of all cases of RP in our unit from 1/1/2004 to 1/1/2009. We then audited all patients undergoing IH repair at all 4 campuses of our tertiary referral centre between 1/1/2004 to 31/7/2011. The databases were then cross checked for matching patient record numbers.

Results

233 RPs were performed at our institution from 1/1/2004 to 1/1/2009, excluding those patients who underwent cystoprostatectomy. This group consisted of 195 ORPs and 38 LRPs. From 1/1/2004 to 31/7/2011 a total 2574 incisional and IH repairs were performed. None of our patients required hernia repair during this period.

Conclusion

It is postulated RP may weaken the normal fascia structures at the internal inguinal ring leading to an increased risk of IH. However the exact mechanism of post-RP IH remains unknown. As none of our 233 RPs developed IH requiring surgical repair we postulate that the association between RP and IH is weaker than previously thought.

Introduction


Inguinal hernia has been reported to occur in 12 to 20% of patients after Radical Prostatectomy (RP) [1-3]. The risk of Inguinal Hernia (IH) is higher in patients undergoing Open Radical Prostatectomy (ORP) versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP) [4]. Furthermore, it has been reported that the risk of inguinal hernia post ORP is increased in patients with previous IH and increased age [5], and decreased with a smaller midline incision [6]. We present our experience with inguinal hernia (IH) risk post RP at an Australian tertiary centre.

Methods


We conducted a retrospective audit of all cases of RP on our unit from 1/1/2004 to 1/1/2009. Operation reports were analysed for approach and technique. We then audited all patients undergoing IH repair at all 4 campuses of our tertiary referral centre between 1/1/2004 to 31/7/2011. The databases were then cross-checked for matching patient record numbers. As this was a retrospective audit, ethics approval was not required by our institution.

Results


264 consecutive RPs were performed at our institution from 1/1/2004 to 1/1/2009. 31 cases involving cystoprostatectomy were excluded from this series. Of the remaining 233 cases, 195 were performed as ORP; and 38 were performed as LRP. Furthermore, Lymph Node Dissection (LND) was carried out in D'Amico intermediate and high-risk groups. Thus, 84 LNDs were performed in those who underwent ORP; and 2 LNDs in those who underwent LRP (figure 1). In those patients undergoing ORP a lower midline incision was used as described by Walsh et al [7].

Figure 1

From 1/1/2004 to 31/7/2011 a total 2574 hernia repairs were performed. This number includes incisional and IH. None of our patients required hernia repair during this period. The mean follow-up time in this period was 57 months (range 31-90). The average patient age at the time of RP was 61.3 years (range 44-80).

Discussion


It is postulated RP may weaken the normal fascia structures at the internal inguinal ring leading to an increased risk of IH [8]. However the exact mechanism of post-RP IH remains unknown [8]. It has been reported that previous IH surgery and age increase the risk of post-RP IH [5]. Furthermore, pelvic lymph node dissection, postoperative anastomotic stricture and duration of surgery have not been associated with an increased risk of post-RP IH [5]. No specific risk factors for post-LRP IH have been identified [4]. As none of our 233 RPs developed IH requiring surgical repair our data indicates that the association between RP and IH is weaker than previously thought. The inclusion of LRPs, comprising of only 38 of our 233 RP cases may have slightly reduced the risk of IH in our cohort. The mean age of our patient cohort is comparable to that of other studies [1,2,5] and hence cannot explain the low risk of IH at our centre. It is important to note that we are a training institution, and the RPs in this audit would have been undertaken by urology residents.

We recognise the limitations of our study. Our study is retrospective and was designed to only detect those IHs requiring surgical repair, inevitably some IHs may have gone undetected in the absence of clinical examination. However our lengthy period of follow-up has afforded considerable time for post-prostatectomy IH to manifest, as more than 80% of IHs arising post RP occur within 2 years [2]. Further, having a study design that would detect only those IHs requiring surgical repair, our audit aimed to inform on the extent of significant and symptomatic IHs for which patients sought treatment.

Furthermore this study was only able to detect those IH repairs undertaken on patients who remained in our health service’s catchment area during the period of follow-up. However, loss to follow-up due to patient relocation would be minimal as our health service covers 32% of the Victorian population (1.39 million people) with 6 major hospitals and 2100 beds [9]. Despite these limitations we suggest given that this pilot audit has failed to demonstrate any cases of IH it is unlikely that there were a significant number of IHs missed.

Conclusion


We propose that previous reports of increased incidence of IH may have been overstated.

References


1. Stranne J, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Damber JE, Hugosson J, Khatami A, Lodding P. “Post-radical prostatectomy inguinal hernia: a simple surgical intervention can substantially reduce the incidence--results from a prospective randomized trial.” J Urol. 2010 Sep; 184(3): 984-9.
2. Ichioka K, Yoshimura K, Utsunomiya N, Ueda N, Matsui Y, Terai A, Arai Y. “High incidence of inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy.” Urol. 2004; 63: 278-281.
3. Regan TC, Mordkin RM, Constantinople NL, Spence IJ, Dejter SW Jr. “Incidence of inguinal hernias following radical retropubic prostatectomy.” Urol. 1996; 47: 536.
4. Lin BM, Hyndman ME, Steele KE, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Schweitzer MA, Pavlovich CP. “Incidence and risk factors for inguinal and incisional hernia after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.” Urol. 2011 Apr; 77(4): 957-62.
5. Stranne J, Hugosson J, Lodding P. “Post-radical retropubic prostatectomy inguinal hernia: an analysis of risk factors with special reference to preoperative inguinal hernia morbidity and pelvic lymph node dissection.” J Urol. 2006; 176(5): 2072-6.
6. Koie T, Yoneyama T, Kamimura N, Imai A, Okamoto A, Ohyama C. “Frequency of postoper- ative inguinal hernia after endoscope-assisted mini-laparotomy and conventional retropubic radical prostatectomies.” Int J Urol. 2008; 15: 226-229
7. Walsh PC. “Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique.” J Urol. 1998; 160: 2418-2424.
8. Taguchi K, Yasui T, Kubota H, Fukuta K, Kobayashi D, Naruyama H, Okada A, Yamada Y, Tozawa K, Kohri K. “Simple method of preventing postoperative inguinal hernia after radical retropubic prostatectomy.” Urol. 2010; 76(5): 1083-7. Epub 2010 Jul 13.
9. Southern Health, Fast Facts [homepage on the Internet]. Melbourne, Southern Health c2009 [updated 30 June 2008, cited 2 November 2011] Available from: http://www.southernhealth.org.au/page/About_Us/Corporate_Information/

Source(s) of Funding


None

Competing Interests


None

Disclaimer


This article has been downloaded from WebmedCentral. With our unique author driven post publication peer review, contents posted on this web portal do not undergo any prepublication peer or editorial review. It is completely the responsibility of the authors to ensure not only scientific and ethical standards of the manuscript but also its grammatical accuracy. Authors must ensure that they obtain all the necessary permissions before submitting any information that requires obtaining a consent or approval from a third party. Authors should also ensure not to submit any information which they do not have the copyright of or of which they have transferred the copyrights to a third party.
Contents on WebmedCentral are purely for biomedical researchers and scientists. They are not meant to cater to the needs of an individual patient. The web portal or any content(s) therein is neither designed to support, nor replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Your use of the WebmedCentral site and its contents is entirely at your own risk. We do not take any responsibility for any harm that you may suffer or inflict on a third person by following the contents of this website.

Comments
0 comments posted so far

Please use this functionality to flag objectionable, inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive content to WebmedCentral Team and the authors.

 

Author Comments
0 comments posted so far

 

What is article Popularity?

Article popularity is calculated by considering the scores: age of the article
Popularity = (P - 1) / (T + 2)^1.5
Where
P : points is the sum of individual scores, which includes article Views, Downloads, Reviews, Comments and their weightage

Scores   Weightage
Views Points X 1
Download Points X 2
Comment Points X 5
Review Points X 10
Points= sum(Views Points + Download Points + Comment Points + Review Points)
T : time since submission in hours.
P is subtracted by 1 to negate submitter's vote.
Age factor is (time since submission in hours plus two) to the power of 1.5.factor.

How Article Quality Works?

For each article Authors/Readers, Reviewers and WMC Editors can review/rate the articles. These ratings are used to determine Feedback Scores.

In most cases, article receive ratings in the range of 0 to 10. We calculate average of all the ratings and consider it as article quality.

Quality=Average(Authors/Readers Ratings + Reviewers Ratings + WMC Editor Ratings)