Lietuvos chirurgija ISSN 1392–0995 eISSN 1648–9942
2021, vol. 20(1), pp. 20–26 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/LietChirur.2021.20.37
Toni Risteski
University Clinic for Pediatric Surgery, University “St. Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
E-mail: drtonirist@yahoo.com
Abstract. Background. Although, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children is gaining ground as a safe, feasible, and popular method, still many pediatric surgeons continue to debate its safety, efficacy, and cosmesis in comparison with conventional open repair. Materials and methods. This was a prospective clinical study, that elaborated 98 female children aged 1–14 with clinically diagnosed indirect inguinal hernia. Equal proportions of 49 children were treated via laparoscopic (PIRS) either conventional open repair (OR). Outpatient clinic follow up was performed regardless of the type of the intervention, on the 7th day and 6 weeks after discharge. Results. The mean age of children in PIRS vs. OR group was 5.3±2.7 vs. 5.9±3.3 years. There was no significant differences between the groups related to age (p = 0.4221), weight (p = 0.5482), family history (p = 0.5377), and residency rural/urban (p = 0.3161). The average length of unilateral vs. bilateral PIRS repair (29.5±6.8 vs. 43.6±7.2 min) was significantly shorter than OR (44±4.2 vs. 97±8.1 min) for consequently p = 0.0023 vs. p = 0.00001. The post-operative hospitalization after PIRS repair was 14.1±3.1 hours and was significantly shorter compared to OR – 44±4.2 hours (p = 0.00001). In OR group, 4 (8.2%) children had postoperative nausea compared to none in PIRS group. Significantly bigger cosmetic satisfaction was found in PIRS compared to OM group (p = 0.0001). Conclusion. With due respect to OR as a gold standard, the proven advantages of PIRS are motivation for further improvement of this technique for the purpose of treatment of inguinal hernia of female children.
Key words: inguinal hernia of children, percutaneous internal ring suturing, laparoscopic surgery, minimal invasive.
Received: 2021/10/02. Accepted: 2020/12/23.
Copyright © 2021 Toni Risteski. Published by Vilnius University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Inguinal hernias are the most common form of abdominal wall hernias to which attributed approximately 7% of surgical consultations and 12% of the total surgery time [1]. Pediatric inguinal hernias are the most common diagnosis for which pediatric surgeons are consulted, while their surgical treatment is one of the most common pediatric surgical procedure. Inguinal hernias can occur at any age, with developmental origin in childhood and dominant frequency among premature infants. About 1–5% of all children have a possibility to develop inguinal hernia, while this percentage increases to 10% in children with a positive family history [1].
The incidence of inguinal hernia varies according infant maturity: 3–5% in full-term infants, 10–30% in premature infants, 13–21% in infants born before the 33rd gestational week, and 30% in newborns with birth weight lower than 1 000 grams [2–4]. The average age of occurrence is 3–4 years, while almost 1/3 of the cases are manifested before the age of six months [5]. The incidence in males is much higher than that of female children [2, 5, 6].
Surgery is required for all pediatric patients diagnosed with inguinal hernia. The surgical procedure for inguinal hernia is safe, and it prevents the occurrence of complications, such as incarceration and obstruction, which may potentially result in ischemia and necrosis of the hernia content, as well as of the surrounding tissue [7–9]. In infants younger than 6 months, inguinal hernia should be carried out as soon as possible due to the high incidence of incarceration [10, 11]. In girls, there is a possibility of torsion along with ovarian ischemia [8, 9]. In comparison with boys, girls with inguinal hernia, whose content are the ovaries and Fallopian tubes, are at risk of compression or torsion of the gonad structures, which leads to ovarian ischemic stroke [12, 13].
In the last decade, with the technological developments in surgical sets of minimally invasive techniques, the treatment of inguinal hernia in childhood started to converged from traditional open to laparoscopic surgery. For many authors the advantages of laparoscopic hernioplasty offers the excellent visual exposition, minimal dissection, reduced trauma of the inguinal canal. Different studies underlines that this method keeps the external abdominal wall unchanged, gives possibility for the evaluation on the contralateral side with minimal dissection, had no trauma and resulted with reduced duration especially in bilateral hernioplasties. In laparoscopic hernioplasty there is no longitudinal skin incision in the anterior-lateral abdominal wall with the opening and separation of the muscles in that area, which improved esthetic results, with lower risk of infection and pain [14]. Still the traditional open approach is the gold standard for this procedure and there is a need more results to be shown to convince many generation of pediatric surgeons in countries in transition to accept the advantages of new laparoscopic procedures.
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes from the conventional open and laparoscopic (PIRS) repair of inguinal hernia in female children.
This was a prospective clinical study, carried out at the University Clinic for Pediatric Surgery, University “St. Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia, which is a single national center for laparoscopic (PIRS) repair of inguinal hernia in female children. The study was performed from April 2015 to August 2017. The study elaborated 98 female children aged 1–14 with clinically diagnosed indirect inguinal hernia. Equal proportions of 49 children were treated via laparoscopic (PIRS) or conventional open repair (OR). Outpatient clinic follow up was performed regardless of the type of the intervention, on the 7th day and 6 weeks after discharge. During the period of the implementation of this study, the University Clinic for Pediatric Surgery was the only place where the PIRS treatment of clinically diagnosed indirect inguinal hernia of female children was performed.
The study work was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Medical Faculty, University “St. Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje. Children underwent either OR or PIRS treatment based on preferences of their parents/guardians and already signed informed consent. The variables of interest for comparison were operative time, time to verticalization (normal position in bed, standing/walking), hospital stay, nausea, pain and cosmetic effects (size and visibility of mark). We asked parent/guardian in collaboration with their children to filled in the visual analogue scale – from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible postoperative pain).
The data was statistically analyzed in SPSS software package, version 22.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). We used Shapiro-Wilk test for testing the normality. Quantitative series were present as mean, median and standard deviation. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the differences between two independent groups when the dependent variable was either ordinal or continuous, but not normally distributed. To determine the association between qualitative variables we used Pearson Chi-square test. A two-sided analysis with a significance level of p < 0.05 was used to determine the statistical significance.
Total of 98 female children with 114 inguinal hernia repairs were performed by the two pediatric surgery teams, each specialized either in PIRS or OR technique. Equal proportions of 49 children were treated via one of the two surgical treatments. The mean age of children in PIRS vs. OR group was 5.3±2.7 vs. 5.9±3.3 years. There was no significant differences between the groups related to age (p = 0.4221), weight (p = 0.5482), family history (p = 0.5377), and rural/urban residency (p = 0.3161). In PIRS vs. OR group, the number of children with right side inguinal hernia was 29 (59.2%) vs. 27 (55.1%), with left side was 19 (38.8%) vs. 18 (36.7%), while those with hernia on both sides was 1 (2.0%) vs. 4 (8.2%) (p = 0.3871).
In the PIRS group, 22 (44.9%) of the children had hernia for 1–2 years, followed by 11 (22.4%) that had it for 6–12 months, 8 (16.3%) for 2–5 years, and 3 (6.1%) for more than 5 years. Nobody in this group had hernia less than 1 month. In the OR, about 12 (24.5%) had hernia for 1–6 months, followed by 11 (22.4%) for 6–12 months, 9 (18.4%) for more than 5 years, 8 (16.3%) for 1–2 years, and 3 (6.1%) for less than 1 month.
In PIRS vs. OR group about 32 (65.3%) vs. 24 (59%) of the children feel discomfort (p = 0.1025), 18 (36.7%) vs. 13 (26.5%) had symptoms (p = 0.2774), 9 (18.4%) vs. 13 (26.5%) experienced pain (p = 0.3328) and 43 (87.8%) vs. 44 (89.9%) had swelling (p = 0.7489) respectively.
The length of the inguinal opening in PIRS vs. OR group was 3±21.7 cm vs. 2.8±1.3 cm, with a min/max of 2/5 cm in both groups. In PIRS group, 2 (4.1%) cases had conversion in the open technique, and 16 (32.7%) had presence of hidden hernia.
The average length of unilateral vs. bilateral PIRS repair (29.5±6.8 vs. 43.6±7.2 min) was significantly shorter than OR repair (44±4.2 vs. 97±8.1 min) for consequently p = 0.0023 vs. p = 0.00001. The post-operative hospitalization after PIRS repair – 14.1±3.1 hours was significantly shorter compared to OR repair – 44±4.2 hours (p = 0.00001). The time needed for full return to a normal position in bed as well as standing/walking was 2.6±0.6 vs. 3.6±0.8 hours in PIRS repair and 4.2±0.6 vs. 5.7±0.7 hours in OR repair (p = 0.00001).
None of the patients in PIRS and 4 (8.2%) in OR group had postoperative nausea. In PIRS group the average grade of pain according to the VAS scale was 0.3±0.5, with a min/max of 0/2 and 50% of the children with no pain for Median IQR = 0 (0–1). In the OR, the average grade of pain was 2.6±1.6, with a min/max score of 0/7 and 50% of children with pain higher than 2 for Median IQR = 2 (1–3).We found postoperative pain to be significantly lower in PIRS compared to OR group (p = 0.00001).
In the PIRS group, with analgesic therapy, were 4 (8.2%), while in the OR group 37 (75.5%) of the children with significant differences in higher of lower number in PIRS group (p = 0.0001). The probability that the patients from OR group would take analgesic therapy was 34.7 times significantly higher compared to the patients from the PIRS group [OR = 34.7 (10.3–116.6) 99% CI]. In PIRS group, all 4 (100%) participants who took analgesic therapy, took only one dose while in OR group most or 15 (40.5%), took two doses of analgesics, followed by 11 (29.7%) who took one dose, 9 (24.3%) who took three doses, and 2 (5.4%) participants who took four doses.
We also analyzed the participants in regards to the size of the mark, for which measuring of the mark in both directions was done: inguinum right and inguinum left. Differences between the groups related to the length of inguinum left as well as right was in favor of PIRS group (p = 0.00001) (Table 1).
The analysis showed that none of the patients from the PIRS group thought the mark disrupted the esthetics, and the 11 (22.4%) weren’t determined in their answer, while in the OR group about 36 (73.5%) thought that the mark disrupted the esthetics, while 23 (23.5%) answered that they weren’t determined in their answer. In the PIRS vs. OM group, esthetics is important for 37 (75.5%) vs. 44 (89.8%) participants. In regards to this question, those that didn’t have a particular opinion were 12 (24.5%) vs. 5 (10.2%) participants (p = 0.0618). Satisfied by the esthetic look in the PIRS vs. the OR group were 46 (93.9%) vs. 5 (10.2%) of parents/guardians with 3 (6.1%) vs. 31 (63.3%) of those that didn’t have a particular opinion regarding this question (p = 0.00001).
Table 1. Analysis of mark’s size for inguinum right and left
|
Groups |
N |
Average |
Standard |
Min |
Max |
Percentiles |
||
|
25th |
50th |
75th |
||||||
|
Mark – infvinum right – Z = –7.2726, p = 0.00001* |
||||||||
|
PIRS |
39 |
2.21 |
0.41 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
OR |
33 |
38.24 |
4.09 |
31 |
45 |
35 |
38 |
42 |
|
Mark – ingvinum left – Z = –5.710, p = 0.00001* |
||||||||
|
PIRS |
25 |
2.20 |
0.41 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
OR |
20 |
38.40 |
4.83 |
30 |
45 |
35 |
40 |
42.5 |
|
Mann-Whitney U Test (Z) |
*significant for p < 0.05 |
|||||||
Surgery is always necessary in the treatment of congenital inguinal hernia in infants and children [4, 15]. Because of the risk for incarceration, that is up to 31% in the first couple of months of life beginning. The laparoscopic era introduced wide range of changings in surgical approach followed by alteration in needed anesthesia, and design of instruments. During the years, it grown into an alternative to open hernioplasty in children [16–19].
As opposed to the European and global experiences with the laparoscopic treatment of inguinal hernia in children, our national experience are much smaller even, bearing in mind the negative experiences of other countries, we moved directly on to one-port technique. The last decade marks an evolution in techniques, from three-port to two-port, and today minimally invasive one-port technique [20].
At the beginning, the laparoscopic treatment often lasted longer than the open technique treatment [21]. However, once the learning curve was passed, the duration gradually decreased [16, 22–24].
Based on published experience, the laparoscopic treatment of inguinal hernia lasted between 20 and 74 min. The total operating time decreased once the learning curve was passed [24, 25]. Our operative time for bilateral intervention was 43.6±7.2 min, and for the unilateral was 38±9 min which was shorter than Chang et al. [26] who reported 42.9±24.7 min due to the time needed to set up the additional instruments in 7 (3.3%) patients. In our study, all the interventions were completed without the use of additional trocars.
According to Patkowski, on the sample of 140 hernias the average PIRS operative time for unilateral hernias was 19 min, while for bilateral was 24 min [27]. Wolak and Patkowski in reported the average PIRS time of 31.6 min for bilateral, and 28.2 (15–45 min) for unilateral hernias [28]. For Lipskar’s the average operative time was 37±10 min [29]. In our study average length of PIRS repair was significantly shorter than OR repair as was found by Hammad et al., on 133 hernias, Shalaby et al. on 874 hernias, and Takehara et al. on 972 treated hernias [1, 4, 30, 31].
In the series by Li et al., the postoperative hospital stay after laparoscopic intervention was 48 (26–52) hours, which was double compared to our study [32]. Bharathi, reported dismissing all the patients, except for 1, within 10 hours after the surgery [14].
In studies published by N. Saha et al. and S.A. Nah et al. demonstrate similar time of total intake of food and length of hospital stay of the laparoscopic as opposed to the conventional technique [33, 34]. Yang et al. in their meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference regarding the issue of intake of food and hospital stay [21]. We found 8.2% children with postoperative nausea in OM, compared to none in PIRS repair group.
In our analysis, the time needed for full return to a normal position in bed as well as standing/walking was 2.6 vs. 3.6 hours in PIRS and 4.2 vs. 5.7 hours in OM repair, which is quite quicker than 6 vs. 10 hours respectively found in laparoscopic group in other studies [31].
The difference in postoperative pain regarding the laparoscopic and open technique is a subject of controversy. Some report less pain, while others report more pain in the immediate postoperative period after the laparoscopic, i.e. the open technique [35, 36]. In our study we found significantly less pain as well as less need for analgesic therapy in PIRS group.
Bharathi et al., reported cuts of 5 mm in the laparoscopic group and 3–4 cm in the open technique [35]. Patkowski et al., reported nearly no visible scars and Chan et al. stressed the superiority of the laparoscopic technique as one with an excellent aesthetic effect [27, 37]. In a retrospective study by Amano et al., from 995 OM patients and 1.033 patients with laparoscopic hernioplasty, regarding the visibility of the scar, on a scale of 1–5, the results were 4.7±0.6 for the open group, and 4.9±0.5 for the laparoscopic group with no significant differences (p = 0.58) [38]. In our study, PIRS patients were significantly more satisfied with mark aesthetics compared to OM patients.
Even this study covered the cases of inguinal hernia in female children at national level, still the limitation was the small number of patients, surgical procedures performed at a single center by two pediatric surgery teams as well as the lack of follow-up period for evaluation of the long-term postoperative result, including recurrence of contralateral inguinal hernias.
We found PIRS as safe and efficient procedure. Although this study compared a small number of cases and the surgical experience was rather limited, still the results show that PIRS could be a valuable alternative to an open surgical approach in inguinal hernia repair due to simplicity, short operative time, minimal invasiveness, and excellent cosmetic results. With due respect to OR as a gold standard, the proven advantages of PIRS are motivation for further improvement of this technique for the purpose of treatment of inguinal hernia of female children.
1. Adams JG. Emergency medicine: clinical essentials (Expert consult – Online). Elsevier Health Sciences, 2012.
2. Helal AA. Laparoscopic Single instrument closure of inguinal hernia in female children: A novel technique. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2015; 50(9): 1613–1616.
3. Kumar VH, Clive J, Rosenkrantz TS, Bourque MD, Hussain N. Inguinal hernia in preterm infants (≤32-week gestation). Pediatric Surgery International 2002; 18(2–3): 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003830100631
4. Lau ST, Lee YH, Caty MG. Current management of hernias and hydroceles. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 2007; 16(1): 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2006.10.007
5. Chong AJ, Fevrier HB, Herrinton LJ. Long-term follow-up of pediatric open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2019; 54(10): 2138–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.01.064
6. Taylor K, Sonderman KA, Wolf LL, Jiang W, Armstrong LB, Koehlmoos TP, Weil BR, Ricca Jr RL, Weldon CB, Haider AH, Rice-Townsend SE. Hernia recurrence following inguinal hernia repair in children. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2018; 53(11): 2214–2218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.03.021
7. Dreuning K, Maat S, Twisk J, van Heurn E, Derikx J. Laparoscopic versus open pediatric inguinal hernia repair: state-of-the-art comparison and future perspectives from a meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy 2019; 33(10): 3177–3191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06960-2
8. Rajput A, Gauderer MW, Hack M. Inguinal hernias in very low birth weight infants: incidence and timing of repair. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 1992; 27(10): 1322–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(92)90287-h
9. Miyake H, Fukumoto K, Yamoto M, Nakajima H, Sekioka A, Yamada Y, Nomura A, Urushihara N. Risk factors for recurrence and contralateral inguinal hernia after laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for pediatric inguinal hernia. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2017; 52(2): 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.11.029
10. Saka R, Okuyama H, Sasaki T, Nose S, Yoneyama C. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for inguinal hernias and hydroceles in children: a comparison with traditional open repair. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 2014; 24(1): 55–58.
11. Ein SH, Njere I, Ein A. Six thousand three hundred sixty-one pediatric inguinal hernias: a 35-year review. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2006; 41(5): 980–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2006.01.020
12. Holcomb GW, Georgeson K, Rothenberg S. Atlas of pediatric laparoscopy and thoracoscopy. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-4160-3373-8.50005-1
13. Florin T, Ludwig S, Aronson PL, Werner HC. Netter’s Pediatrics. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011.
14. Oue T, Kubota A, Okuyama H, Kawahara H. Laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) method for the exploration and treatment of inguinal hernia in girls. Pediatric Surgery International 2005; 21(12): 964–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-005-1556-9
15. Hamad MA, Osman MA, Abdelhamed M. Laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous internal ring ligation in children. Annals of Pediatric Surgery 2011; 7(2): 66–69.
16. Alzahem A. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniotomy in infants and children: a meta-analysis. Pediatric Surgery International 2011; 27(6): 605–612.
17. Shalaby R, Ismail M, Samaha A, Yehya A, Ibrahem R, Gouda S, Helal A, Alsamahy O. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair; experience with 874 children. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2014; 49(3): 460–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.10.019
18. Shalaby R, Ismail M, Dorgham A, Hefny K, Alsaied G, Gabr K, Abdelaziz M. Laparoscopic hernia repair in infancy and childhood: evaluation of 2 different techniques. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2010; 45(11): 2210–2216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.07.004
19. Turial S, Saied A, Schier F. Microlaparoscopic hernia repair in children: initial experiences. Surgical Innovation 2011; 18(4): 368–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350611406742
20. Kumar A, Ramakrishnan TS. Single port laparoscopic repair of paediatric inguinal hernias: Our experience at a secondary care centre. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2013; 9(1): 7–12.
21. Yang C, Zhang H, Pu J, Mei H, Zheng L, Tong Q. Laparoscopic vs open herniorrhaphy in the management of pediatric inguinal hernia: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2011; 46(9): 1824–1834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.04.001
22. Gorsler CM, Schier F. Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy in children. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques 2003; 17(4): 571–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8947-y
23. Schier F, Montupet P, Esposito C. Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy in children: a three-center experience with 933 repairs. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2002; 37(3): 395–397. https://doi.org/10.1053/jpsu.2002.30842
24. Lee Y, Liang J. Experience with 450 cases of micro-laparoscopic herniotomy in infants and children. Pediatric Endosurgery and Innovative Techniques 2002; 6(1): 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1089/10926410252832410
25. Shalaby R, Ibrahem R, Shahin M, Yehya A, Abdalrazek M, Alsayaad I, Shouker MA. Laparoscopic hernia repair versus open herniotomy in children: a controlled randomized study. Minimally Invasive Surgery 2012; 2012: 484135. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/484135
26. Chang YT, Lee JY, Tsai CJ, Chiu WC, Chiou CS. Preliminary experience of one-trocar laparoscopic herniorrhaphy in infants and children. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 2011; 21(3): 277–282. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2010.0132
27. Patkowski D, Czernik J, Chrzan R, Jaworski W, Apoznański W. Percutaneous internal ring suturing: a simple minimally invasive technique for inguinal hernia repair in children. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 2006; 16(5): 513–517. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2006.16.513
28. Wolak PK, Patkowski D. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children using the percutaneous internal ring suturing technique – own experience. Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques 2014; 9(1): 53–58. https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2014.40389
29. Lipskar AM, Soffer SZ, Glick RD, Rosen NG, Levitt MA, Hong AR. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia inversion and ligation in female children: a review of 173 consecutive cases at a single institution. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2010; 45(6): 1370–1374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.02.113
30. Shalaby R, Essa AG, Yehya AA, Ibrahem R, Hassan E, Shams AE, Gouda S. Laparoscopic Hernia Repair in Infancy and Childhood; Evaluation of Two Different Techniques. Annals of Pediatric Surgery 2010; 6(1): 6–13.
31. Takehara H, Yakabe S, Kameoka K. Laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for inguinal hernia in children: clinical outcome of 972 repairs done in 3 pediatric surgical institutions. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2006; 41(12): 1999–2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2006.08.032
32. Li B, Nie X, Xie H, Gong D. Modified single-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy for pediatric inguinal hernias: based on 1.107 cases in China. Surgical Endoscopy 2012; 26(12): 3663–3668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2396-z
33. Saha N, Biswas I, Rahman MA, Islam MK. Surgical outcome of laparoscopic and open surgery of pediatric inguinal hernia. Mymensingh Medical Journal 2013; 22(2): 232–236.
34. Nah SA, Giacomello L, Eaton S, Coppi PD, Curry JI, Drake DP, Kiely EM, Pierro A. Surgical repair of incarcerated inguinal hernia in children: laparoscopic or open? European Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2011; 21(1): 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1262793
35. Bharathi RS, Arora M, Baskaran V. Pediatric inguinal hernia: laparoscopic versus open surgery. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2008; 12(3): 277–281.
36. Kang CH, Kim YJ, Kim KT. Initial Experience with Percutaneous Internal Ring Suturing for Indirect Inguinal Hernia in Pediatric Patients. Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2020; 23(2): 67–73. https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2020.23.2.67
37. Chan KL, Hui WC, Tam PK. Prospective randomized single-center, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic vs open repair of pediatric inguinal hernia. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques 2005; 19(7): 927–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8224-3
38. Amano H, Tanaka Y, Kawashima H, Deie K, Fujiogi M, Suzuki K, Morita K, Iwanaka T, Uchida H. Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases. Surgical Endoscopy 2017; 31(12): 4988–4995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5472-6