Evidence Hub

Comparison of open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial

M. Ulutaş, A. Yılmaz

Hernia, 2025

120 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

It is well known that inguinal hernia repair in geriatric patients carries a higher risk of postoperative complications compared to younger patients. One of the key factors influencing these complications is the surgical technique employed. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the impact of laparoscopy on elderly patients. This prospective randomized study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open hernia repair techniques in this patient population. Between April 2023 and April 2024, 120 consecutive patients aged 65 years and older with inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the laparoscopic TEP group (n = 60) and the open (Lichtenstein) procedure group (n = 60). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06417346). The primary outcome of this study was the comparison of postoperative complication rates. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of hernia types, operative times, postoperative pain levels, and recurrence rates. A total of 120 patients were followed up for 12 months. The mean age was 71.7 ± 6.5 years in the open group and 69.6 ± 3.9 years in the TEP group (p = 0.18). The mean operative time was 35.8 ± 7.8 min in the open group and 36.3 ± 8.7 min in the TEP group (p = 0.92). The mean time to return to normal daily activities was 10.6 ± 4.3 days in the open group and 7.5 ± 2.4 days in the TEP group (p < 0.001). On postoperative day 1, the VAS score was 3.7 ± 1.3 in the open group and 2.9 ± 1.1 in the TEP group (p…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 120 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free