Inguinal HerniaSILTelescopicNCT01883115
A Prospective Study Comparing Telescopic vs. Balloon Dissection in Single Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniorraphy (SILTELESCOPIC)
An observational study of Inguinal Hernia, run by The Sydney Hernia Specialists Clinic at 2 sites in Australia.
Trial summary
Our recent prospective randomized controlled study comparing single-port vs. multiport laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal herniorraphy (NCT 01660048) demonstrated superiority of the single-port technique in reducing post-op pain/analgesic requirements, quicker return to work/normal physical activities and… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 to 86 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Inguinal Hernia
- How many people
- 102 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesAustralia
- Study dates
- Feb 2013to Apr 2015
- How long will I take part?
- 12 Months
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 16 to 86 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: All eligible patients referred with inguinal/femoral hernias from February 2013 will be enrolled into the study
Who may be able to join
- all patients referred with inguinal/femoral hernias
Who cannot join
- • workers Compensation cases
- previous extraperitoneal intervention
- unfit for a general anaesthetic
- strangulated hernias
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Australia2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
Holroyd Private Hospital
Guildford, New South Wales, 2161
Hanh M Tran, FRACS, 61 2 9221 1043, drhmtran@hotmail.com
- Recruiting
St Luke's Hospital
Potts Point, New South Wales, 2011
Hanh M Tran, FRACS, 61 2 9221 1043, drhmtran@hotmail.com
About this study
Our recent prospective randomized controlled study comparing single-port vs. multiport laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal herniorraphy (NCT 01660048) demonstrated superiority of the single-port technique in reducing post-op pain/analgesic requirements, quicker return to work/normal physical activities and improved cosmetic scar scores. During this study all patients underwent the initial extraperitoneal dissection with the distension balloon. However, the balloon itself costs AU $380 per device which represents a significant percentage of the overall cost of the procedure (when the hospital/operating rooms cost is approximately AU $2500 for a unilateral laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair) especially if only unilateral inguinal herniorraphy is performed.
The European Hernia Society Guidelines encourage the use of the distension balloon for the initial distension/dissection of the extraperitoneal space especially during the learning curve. This recommendation arises from the fact that during the conventional multiport repair the umbilical port allows only the insertion of the laparoscope and the extraperitoneal space cannot easily be dissected with the scope itself, especially in patients with well-developed linea alba extending down to the pubic symphysis, and the camera itself, if used as dissection device, would become smudged and it would have to be repeatedly withdrawn for cleaning. Yet this must occur since the extraperitoneal space must be dissected in the midline sufficiently for safe insertion of two additional 5 mm ports for insertion of dissecting instruments in order to complete the extraperitoneal space dissection and the repair.
Read more
With single incision laparoscopic surgery the use of the Triport™ system ensure that the port can be place under direct vision into the extraperitoneal space when the scope and two dissecting instruments can be safely inserted at the outset. In this way the extraperitoneal space can be dissected under direct vision. The balloon dissection is essentially a blind dissection even though the balloon distension is being observed by the scope, incorrect tissue planes can be entered ie the dissection can occur below the pre-peritoneal fascia exposing the nerves in the groin with the potential risks for nerve damage and entrapment. This is an argument that surgeons who practise transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair use to justify their superior technique over the TEP repair because, in the TAPP repair, the peritoneum is carefully dissected free from and leaving the underlying preperitoneal fascia intact.
While the use of the balloon, when some 25 "pumps" of air are used during the insufflation, to create a significant space to place not only the two 5 mm ports but also to create a significant extraperitoneal dissection when usually only the lateral space and the hernia sac need to be dissected this is not always possible. In patients who have had previous lower abdominal surgery including previous anterior inguinal herniorraphy (especially if the mesh plug is used) the balloon dissention is normally judicious as one cannot predict whether there are any significant peritoneal or even bowel adhesions. Consequently, in such cases, the balloon distension is normally confined to an area just inferior to the umbilical port and superior to the pubic symphysis so that there is just enough extraperitoneal dissection to place the two 5 mm trocars. Usually this means only using only 5 pumps of air in the distension balloon for placement of two 5 mm trocars. Then the dissection of the extraperitonealy space under direct vision can take place. The use of the distension balloon in such cases represents an enormous waste of resources since AU $380 is spent just to create enough space to place the two 5 mm ports and hence allowing the insertion of the dissecting instruments. With the Triport+™ port the dissecting instruments can easily be placed in the extraperitoneal space and the dissection can begin under direct vision hence achieving the same safe dissection that TAPP surgeons claim to perform.
In this study we aim to look at the safety and efficacy of telescopic vs. balloon dissection by prospectively comparing a similar former group of patients to the ones who had previously undergone single-port inguinal herniorraphy with balloon dissection in our previous study (NCT 01660048).
All patients having surgical treatment of groin hernia at St Luke's and Holroyd Private Hospitals are subject to very careful assessment and study. All patients are requested to report immediately if there are any problems.
Read the detailed description
This study will compare the extraperitoneal dissection during single-port laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal/femoral hernias using the traditional balloon dissection and the telescopic dissection techniques.
Laparoscopic hernia repair was first introduced in 1990. The uptake rate was slow to start off with such that in 1994 only 9.7% of all inguinal hernias were performed laparoscopically However, in 2012, the figure now stands at 48% Australia-wide. (www.medicareaustralia.gov.au). Indeed, in the State of New South Wales this figure stands at 51%, which means that it is the commonest operation performed for inguinal hernias in this State.
Up to 2009, the laparoscopic hernia repair involves the insertion of 3 ports: 10mm port in the infra-umbilical region for the camera via a 2 cm incision and 2 x 5 mm working ports usually in the midline for the dissecting instruments via 2 x 10 mm incisions. These ports are called secondary trocars which are usually sharp. Their insertion has the potential to cause bowel and vascular injuries.
The European Hernia Society guidelines (www.herniaweb.org) on the treatment of inguinal hernias have shown (conventional) endoscopic techniques to be associated with higher rates of port-site hernias and visceral injuries especially during the learning curve period.
A recent study of 37,000 gynaecological laparoscopies in the US showed a bowel injury rate of 0.16%; a third of these led to the death of the patients. 22% of all bowel injuries resulted from the insertion of secondary trocars (www.danaise.com/vascular_and_bowel_injuries_duri.htm).
Another report from a large hernia centre in the US showed that in the first 300 transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repairs 2 bowel injuries (and one bladder injury) were observed. Indeed, when these investigators changed the technique to a TEP repair they also observed 2 bowel injuries (and one bladder injury) in the first 300 TEP repairs. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11178763) Therefore bowel and vascular injuries during laparoscopic surgery are real but they are often under reported.
Single incision laparoscopic surgery, where all the instruments are placed in a single port, has the primary aim of preventing vascular and bowel injury through the use of completely blunt trocars as in the case of the SILS™ port. The first case of laparoscopic TEP repair was reported in 2009. Since then there have numerous reports confirming the safety and efficacy of the single-port technique.
The principle author, Dr Hanh Tran, has been performing single incision laparoscopic hernia repair since October 2009. To date, he has performed in excess of 600 cases with excellent results and this was confirmed in a recently completed prospective randomized controlled study comparing single-port vs. multiport laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy (NCT 01660048) in achieving successful cure of hernias, no complications including wound infection, reduced post-op pain/analgesic requirements, earlier return to work/physical activities, high patient satisfaction and excellent cosmetic results.
However this was achieved at significant additional costs because of the use of the single ports. These costs were not reimbursed by the medical insurance companies. The single-port technique allows for direct insertion of the dissecting instruments into the extraperitoneal space where complete dissection can occur under direct vision as supposed to blind dissection with the balloon dissector just so that two 5mm ports can be inserted during multiport TEP repair.
It is proposed that 51 (or more) patients will be enrolled into the study and this will be compared to the previous 51 patients in the previous RCT with balloon dissection. The single-port TEP inguinal herniorraphy is exactly the same in both procedures except in the telescopic technique the dissection of the extraperitoneal dissection is done under direct vision without the use of the balloon dissector.
The main disadvantage of the single port technique is the relative loss of triangulation and the principle author has shown that this can be overcome with the use of a longer and smaller laparoscope (of which Holroyd Private Hospital has bought two specifically for this purpose), different dissecting techniques and with increased experience. Therefore, if a surgeon is not experienced with this technique the operation and its success can be compromised by inadequate dissection. The author (who has performed over 2500 TEP repairs over the past 13 years) believes that the learning curve for single-port TEP hernia repair for a highly experienced TEP surgeon is around 25-50 ie after this number the operation time will approach that of the standard three ports TEP repair and this has been shown in our recently completed RCT. He has performed in excess of 600 Single-port Laparoscopic hernia repairs since October 2009. Therefore the success of the operation for patients in either arm of the study will not be compromised by lack of experience.
The follow up of these patients will be no different to those followed up under the protocol of the Sydney Hernia Specialists/Clinic. This is a standard follow up and is consistent with normal clinical practice.
In summary, the goals are simple. (i) To perform single-port laparoscopic TEP inguinal herniorraphy with telescopic extraperitoneal dissection; (ii) To assess the efficacy of the newer telescopic dissection technique in a rigorous scientific manner; (iii) To report any unexpected problems or complications; (iv) To follow up patients treated laparoscopically to ensure that the single-port technique with balloon dissection or telescopic dissection have as good results as or better in terms of cure of hernia (absence of recurrence of the hernia) and less complications and better cosmetic results as that which is achieved when the traditional 3-ports technique is used and; (v) to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing telescopic dissection vs. balloon dissection.
- Conditions
- Inguinal Hernia
- Keywords
- Telescopic extraperitoneal dissection, Single incision laparosocpic surgery, Inguinal hernia, Triport system
- Medical subject headings
- Hernia, Inguinal
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Telescopic group | All eligible patients referred with inguinal/femoral hernias will be enrolled into the study from February 2013 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Post-op pain
Post-op pain measured on day 1 and 7 using the visual analogue score of 0 to 10
Measured: measured on day 1 and day 7
Secondary outcomes (10)
• Conversion to multiport or open operation
This refers to whether any single port procedure needs to be converted to multiports or open procedure. This is quite a normal process as a proportion of multiport procedures are converted to open procedures for safety reasons.
Measured: up to one year
• Length of hospital stay
This assess how long patient stays in hospital whether it is a day procedure or whether they need to stay in hospital overnight or longer
Measured: up to one year
operation time
this is measured from initial skin incision to complete wound closure
Measured: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 1 day
Analgesic requirements
This assesses how many painkiller tablets (Dextropropoxyphene) patients ingest in the first week after operation
Measured: up to one week
return to work or normal physical activities
This assesses how soon patients return to work or normal physical activities
Measured: up to one year
Quality of life health scores
SF36 forms are completed before operation, 6 weeks and 1 year after operation
Measured: up to 1 year
Cosmetic scar score
Scar length will be measured at 6 weeks postop and patients will be asked to assess satisfaction of their own scars 6 weeks and 1 year after surgery
Measured: 1 year
Recurrence of hernia
Patients will be assessed at 1 week, 6 weeks and one year to detect presence of recurrence of hernia
Measured: 1 year
post-operative complications including urinary retention, wound infection, seroma formation, chronic pain, testicular atrophy
Patients will be seen at 1 week, 6 weeks to assess for any peri-operative complications associated with hernia surgery as enumerated above
Measured: 1 year
cost analysis of the ports used
Cost savings arising from telescopic dissection will be assessed using data provided by the Hospital Finance Department regarding the costs of the single ports
Measured: up to one year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Jun 2013 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2013
- Primary completionApr 2014 (estimated)
- Study completionApr 2015 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Inguinal HerniaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 102 participants (estimated)
- Target duration
- 12 Months
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Sydney Hernia Specialists Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Sydney
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr Hanh Minh Tran, The Sydney Hernia Specialists Clinic
- Investigators
- Wayne J Hawthorne, MD, Study chair, The Unviversity of Sydney
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01883115
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SILTelescopic
- Acronym
- SILTelescopic
- Status last verified
- Apr 2014
- First submitted
- 16 Jun 2013
- Last updated
- 4 Apr 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Tran H. Safety and efficacy of single incision laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. JSLS. 2011 Jan-Mar;15(1):47-52. doi: 10.4293/108680811X13022985131174.
PubMed 21902942Tran H. Robotic single-port hernia surgery. JSLS. 2011 Jul-Sep;15(3):309-14. doi: 10.4293/108680811X13125733356198.
PubMed 21985715Tran H. Safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for abdominal wall hernias. JSLS. 2012 Apr-Jun;16(2):242-9. doi: 10.4293/108680812x13427982376301.
PubMed 23477172Tran H, Tran K, Turingan I, Zajkowska M, Lam V, Hawthorne W. Single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy with telescopic extraperitoneal dissection: technical aspects and potential benefits. Hernia. 2015 Jun;19(3):407-16. doi: 10.1007/s10029-015-1349-6. Epub 2015 Feb 3.
PubMed 25644488
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Apr 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Prospective Study Comparing Telescopic vs. Balloon Dissection in Single Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniorraphy (SILTELESCOPIC)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01883115
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SILTelescopic / SILTelescopic
- Conditions
- Inguinal Hernia
- Keywords
- Telescopic extraperitoneal dissection, Single incision laparosocpic surgery, Inguinal hernia, Triport system
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 102 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- The Sydney Hernia Specialists ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Sydney
- Study start
- Feb 2013
- Primary completion
- Apr 2014 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Apr 2015 (estimated)
- First posted
- 21 Jun 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Our recent prospective randomized controlled study comparing single-port vs. multiport laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal herniorraphy (NCT 01660048) demonstrated superiority of the single-port technique in reducing post-op pain/analgesic requirements, quicker return to work/normal physical activities and improved cosmetic scar scores. During this study all patients underwent the initial extraperitoneal dissection with the distension balloon. However, the balloon itself costs AU $380 per device which represents a significant percentage of the overall cost of the procedure (when the hospital/operating rooms cost is approximately AU $2500 for a unilateral laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair) especially if only unilateral inguinal herniorraphy is performed.
The European Hernia Society Guidelines encourage the use of the distension balloon for the initial distension/dissection of the extraperitoneal space especially during the learning curve. This recommendation arises from the fact that during the conventional multiport repair the umbilical port allows only the insertion of the laparoscope and the extraperitoneal space cannot easily be dissected with the scope itself, especially in patients with well-developed linea alba extending down to the pubic symphysis, and the camera itself, if used as dissection device, would become smudged and it would have to be repeatedly withdrawn for cleaning. Yet this must occur since the extraperitoneal space must be dissected in the midline sufficiently for safe insertion of two additional 5 mm ports for insertion of dissecting instruments in order to complete the extraperitoneal space dissection and the repair.
With single incision laparoscopic surgery the use of the Triport™ system ensure that the port can be place under direct vision into the extraperitoneal space when the scope and two dissecting instruments can be safely inserted at the outset. In this way the extraperitoneal space can be dissected under direct vision. The balloon dissection is essentially a blind dissection even though the balloon distension is being observed by the scope, incorrect tissue planes can be entered ie the dissection can occur below the pre-peritoneal fascia exposing the nerves in the groin with the potential risks for nerve damage and entrapment. This is an argument that surgeons who practise transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair use to justify their superior technique over the TEP repair because, in the TAPP repair, the peritoneum is carefully dissected free from and leaving the underlying preperitoneal fascia intact.
While the use of the balloon, when some 25 "pumps" of air are used during the insufflation, to create a significant space to place not only the two 5 mm ports but also to create a significant extraperitoneal dissection when usually only the lateral space and the hernia sac need to be dissected this is not always possible. In patients who have had previous lower abdominal surgery including previous anterior inguinal herniorraphy (especially if the mesh plug is used) the balloon dissention is normally judicious as one cannot predict whether there are any significant peritoneal or even bowel adhesions. Consequently, in such cases, the balloon distension is normally confined to an area just inferior to the umbilical port and superior to the pubic symphysis so that there is just enough extraperitoneal dissection to place the two 5 mm trocars. Usually this means only using only 5 pumps of air in the distension balloon for placement of two 5 mm trocars. Then the dissection of the extraperitonealy space under direct vision can take place. The use of the distension balloon in such cases represents an enormous waste of resources since AU $380 is spent just to create enough space to place the two 5 mm ports and hence allowing the insertion of the dissecting instruments. With the Triport+™ port the dissecting instruments can easily be placed in the extraperitoneal space and the dissection can begin under direct vision hence achieving the same safe dissection that TAPP surgeons claim to perform.
In this study we aim to look at the safety and efficacy of telescopic vs. balloon dissection by prospectively comparing a similar former group of patients to the ones who had previously undergone single-port inguinal herniorraphy with balloon dissection in our previous study (NCT 01660048).
All patients having surgical treatment of groin hernia at St Luke's and Holroyd Private Hospitals are subject to very careful assessment and study. All patients are requested to report immediately if there are any problems.
Detailed description
This study will compare the extraperitoneal dissection during single-port laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal/femoral hernias using the traditional balloon dissection and the telescopic dissection techniques.
Laparoscopic hernia repair was first introduced in 1990. The uptake rate was slow to start off with such that in 1994 only 9.7% of all inguinal hernias were performed laparoscopically However, in 2012, the figure now stands at 48% Australia-wide. (www.medicareaustralia.gov.au). Indeed, in the State of New South Wales this figure stands at 51%, which means that it is the commonest operation performed for inguinal hernias in this State.
Up to 2009, the laparoscopic hernia repair involves the insertion of 3 ports: 10mm port in the infra-umbilical region for the camera via a 2 cm incision and 2 x 5 mm working ports usually in the midline for the dissecting instruments via 2 x 10 mm incisions. These ports are called secondary trocars which are usually sharp. Their insertion has the potential to cause bowel and vascular injuries.
The European Hernia Society guidelines (www.herniaweb.org) on the treatment of inguinal hernias have shown (conventional) endoscopic techniques to be associated with higher rates of port-site hernias and visceral injuries especially during the learning curve period.
A recent study of 37,000 gynaecological laparoscopies in the US showed a bowel injury rate of 0.16%; a third of these led to the death of the patients. 22% of all bowel injuries resulted from the insertion of secondary trocars (www.danaise.com/vascular_and_bowel_injuries_duri.htm).
Another report from a large hernia centre in the US showed that in the first 300 transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repairs 2 bowel injuries (and one bladder injury) were observed. Indeed, when these investigators changed the technique to a TEP repair they also observed 2 bowel injuries (and one bladder injury) in the first 300 TEP repairs. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11178763) Therefore bowel and vascular injuries during laparoscopic surgery are real but they are often under reported.
Single incision laparoscopic surgery, where all the instruments are placed in a single port, has the primary aim of preventing vascular and bowel injury through the use of completely blunt trocars as in the case of the SILS™ port. The first case of laparoscopic TEP repair was reported in 2009. Since then there have numerous reports confirming the safety and efficacy of the single-port technique.
The principle author, Dr Hanh Tran, has been performing single incision laparoscopic hernia repair since October 2009. To date, he has performed in excess of 600 cases with excellent results and this was confirmed in a recently completed prospective randomized controlled study comparing single-port vs. multiport laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy (NCT 01660048) in achieving successful cure of hernias, no complications including wound infection, reduced post-op pain/analgesic requirements, earlier return to work/physical activities, high patient satisfaction and excellent cosmetic results.
However this was achieved at significant additional costs because of the use of the single ports. These costs were not reimbursed by the medical insurance companies. The single-port technique allows for direct insertion of the dissecting instruments into the extraperitoneal space where complete dissection can occur under direct vision as supposed to blind dissection with the balloon dissector just so that two 5mm ports can be inserted during multiport TEP repair.
It is proposed that 51 (or more) patients will be enrolled into the study and this will be compared to the previous 51 patients in the previous RCT with balloon dissection. The single-port TEP inguinal herniorraphy is exactly the same in both procedures except in the telescopic technique the dissection of the extraperitoneal dissection is done under direct vision without the use of the balloon dissector.
The main disadvantage of the single port technique is the relative loss of triangulation and the principle author has shown that this can be overcome with the use of a longer and smaller laparoscope (of which Holroyd Private Hospital has bought two specifically for this purpose), different dissecting techniques and with increased experience. Therefore, if a surgeon is not experienced with this technique the operation and its success can be compromised by inadequate dissection. The author (who has performed over 2500 TEP repairs over the past 13 years) believes that the learning curve for single-port TEP hernia repair for a highly experienced TEP surgeon is around 25-50 ie after this number the operation time will approach that of the standard three ports TEP repair and this has been shown in our recently completed RCT. He has performed in excess of 600 Single-port Laparoscopic hernia repairs since October 2009. Therefore the success of the operation for patients in either arm of the study will not be compromised by lack of experience.
The follow up of these patients will be no different to those followed up under the protocol of the Sydney Hernia Specialists/Clinic. This is a standard follow up and is consistent with normal clinical practice.
In summary, the goals are simple. (i) To perform single-port laparoscopic TEP inguinal herniorraphy with telescopic extraperitoneal dissection; (ii) To assess the efficacy of the newer telescopic dissection technique in a rigorous scientific manner; (iii) To report any unexpected problems or complications; (iv) To follow up patients treated laparoscopically to ensure that the single-port technique with balloon dissection or telescopic dissection have as good results as or better in terms of cure of hernia (absence of recurrence of the hernia) and less complications and better cosmetic results as that which is achieved when the traditional 3-ports technique is used and; (v) to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing telescopic dissection vs. balloon dissection.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 12 Months
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Telescopic group | – | –All eligible patients referred with inguinal/femoral hernias will be enrolled into the study from February 2013 |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 16 to 86 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- All eligible patients referred with inguinal/femoral hernias from February 2013 will be enrolled into the study
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- all patients referred with inguinal/femoral hernias
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- • workers Compensation cases
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Post-op pain
Time frame: measured on day 1 and day 7
Post-op pain measured on day 1 and 7 using the visual analogue score of 0 to 10
10 secondary outcomes
• Conversion to multiport or open operation
Time frame: up to one year
• Length of hospital stay
Time frame: up to one year
operation time
Time frame: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 1 day
Analgesic requirements
Time frame: up to one week
return to work or normal physical activities
Time frame: up to one year
Quality of life health scores
Time frame: up to 1 year
Cosmetic scar score
Time frame: 1 year
Recurrence of hernia
Time frame: 1 year
post-operative complications including urinary retention, wound infection, seroma formation, chronic pain, testicular atrophy
Time frame: 1 year
cost analysis of the ports used
Time frame: up to one year
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Apr 2014.
- Results publication: PubMed 21902942Tran H. Safety and efficacy of single incision laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. JSLS. 2011 Jan-Mar;15(1):47-52. doi: 10.4293/108680811X13022985131174.
- Results publication: PubMed 21985715Tran H. Robotic single-port hernia surgery. JSLS. 2011 Jul-Sep;15(3):309-14. doi: 10.4293/108680811X13125733356198.
- Results publication: PubMed 23477172Tran H. Safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for abdominal wall hernias. JSLS. 2012 Apr-Jun;16(2):242-9. doi: 10.4293/108680812x13427982376301.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 25644488Tran H, Tran K, Turingan I, Zajkowska M, Lam V, Hawthorne W. Single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorraphy with telescopic extraperitoneal dissection: technical aspects and potential benefits. Hernia. 2015 Jun;19(3):407-16. doi: 10.1007/s10029-015-1349-6. Epub 2015 Feb 3.
- Sydney Hernia Specialists ClinicLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Inguinal Hernia
Active, not recruiting
Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of a New Laparoscopic Non-mesh Hernia Needle Set Designed for Indirect Inguinal Hernia
Inguinal Hernia, Without Mention of Obstruction or Gangrene
Recruiting
Desarda Tissue Technique vs Lichtenstein Technique for Primary Inguinal Hernia Repair
Inguinal Hernia Unilateral, Complications of Surgical Procedures or Medical Care
Recruiting
Permanent Versus Slowly Dissolving Stitches for Non-Mesh (Shouldice) Groin Hernia Repair
Inguinal Hernia
Active, not recruiting
Urinary Catheterization Versus No Catheterization in Laparoscopic Total Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair
Inguinal Hernias
Recruiting
Comparison of Two Surgical Techniques for Indirect Inguinal Hernia Repair
Indirect Inguinal Hernia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Wayne J Hawthorne, MD study chair
The Unviversity of Sydney
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Inguinal Hernia, run by The Sydney Hernia Specialists Clinic at 2 sites in Australia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Apr 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Australia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Hanh M Tran, FRACS (61 2 9221 1043, drhmtran@hotmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Post-op pain (time frame: measured on day 1 and day 7). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01883115, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Apr 2014; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 29 Oct 2026.