Percutaneous Internal Ring Suture versus open repair for recurrent inguinal hernia in children; a single-centre retrospective study
Erik Nilsson Stahre, Niclas Högberg, Lars Hagander, Oskar NensénAbstract
Introduction
Recurrent inguinal hernia in children is uncommon, and comparative data between methods for its management is lacking. This study aimed to compare Percutaneous Internal Ring Suture (PIRS) to open repair for recurrent inguinal hernia regarding operative times, theatre times, complications, and re-recurrences.
Methods
All children operated for recurrent inguinal hernia 2016–2025 at our centre were included. Operative and theatre times were compared for isolated unilateral recurrences with complete data: primary recurrence at patient level and all recurrences including re-recurrences at case level. Groups of recurrence repair were compared using Mann-Whitney U, Fisher's exact test, and rank-biserial correlation (r).
Results
A total of 41 patients (54% PIRS, 46% Open) and 52 hernias (52% PIRS, 48% Open) were analysed, and in terms of age and gender the groups were comparable. In the patient analysis, median operative (25 versus 51.5 min, P < 0.001, n = 33, r = 0.85) and theatre time (101 versus 121 min, P = 0.007, n = 33, r = 0.56) were shorter for PIRS. In the case analysis, median operative (24.5 versus 53 min, P < 0.001, n = 41, r = 0.85) and theatre time (101 versus 120 min, P = 0.002, n = 41, r = 0.57) were also shorter for PIRS. No complications were observed in the 6-month follow-up. There was no observed difference regarding re-recurrent hernia between PIRS and open repair (5/27 versus 4/25).
Discussion
PIRS showed considerably shorter operative and theatre time compared to open repair. Observed complications and re-recurrences did not differ between the two methods. PIRS may offer advantages for recurrent inguinal hernia repair in children, and prospective validation is warranted.