Meuzelaar R R, Verleisdonk E J M M, Schiphorst A H W, den Hartog F P J, Tanis P J, Burgmans J P J
Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Surg Endosc. 2025 May 22. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11681-w.
Current international guidelines offer no specific recommendations for managing occult inguinal hernias with groin pain, often resulting in unnecessary repairs. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated whether watchful waiting (WW) is non-inferior to totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair in this distinct patient population.
From December 29, 2017, to March 4, 2022, this multicenter, non-inferiority RCT screened all adult patients with unilateral groin pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] ≥ 1) without a clinically evident inguinal hernia. Patients allocated to the WW arm were treated with rest, analgesics, or physiotherapy, while those assigned to surgery underwent TEP repair. The sample size was 80 patients per arm (non-inferiority margin: 0.75 NRS; 1-sided alpha: 0.025; beta: 0.10; loss to follow-up: 10%). The primary outcome was the mean NRS difference between baseline and 3 months of follow-up, measured at rest and during exercise, and analyzed using a mixed-effects model. Total follow-up was 12 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, and crossover rate.
From a total of 99 patients, 85 patients were included in the study (WW: 49; TEP: 36). The analysis showed a mean difference of 0.644 (97.5% CI: - 0.321 to 1.610) for pain at rest and 0.806 (97.5% CI: - 0.402 to 2.014) for pain during exercise. Crossover from WW to TEP occurred in five patients (10%). Secondary outcomes were similar between the groups up to 3 months.
This trial failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of WW compared to TEP repair for pain relief at 3 months post-intervention in patients with groin pain and an occult inguinal hernia. However, this result does not confirm that WW is inferior, as secondary outcomes were comparable up to 3 months and upfront TEP repair carried a risk of overtreatment. Therefore, a WW strategy for at least 3 months may be justified as a diagnostic tool to determine which patients may benefit from surgery.
当前国际指南对于隐匿性腹股沟疝合并腹股沟疼痛的处理未给出具体建议,常导致不必要的修补手术。这项随机对照试验(RCT)评估了在这一特殊患者群体中,观察等待(WW)是否不劣于完全腹膜外(TEP)修补术。
从2017年12月29日至2022年3月4日,这项多中心非劣效性RCT对所有单侧腹股沟疼痛(数字评定量表[NRS]≥1)且无临床明显腹股沟疝的成年患者进行了筛查。分配至WW组的患者接受休息、镇痛或物理治疗,而分配至手术组的患者接受TEP修补术。每组样本量为80例患者(非劣效界值:0.75 NRS;单侧α:0.025;β:0.10;失访率:10%)。主要结局是干预后3个月随访时,静息和运动时基线与随访时NRS的平均差值,采用混合效应模型进行分析。总随访时间为12个月。次要结局包括生活质量、患者满意度和交叉率。
在总共99例患者中,85例患者纳入研究(WW组:49例;TEP组:36例)。分析显示,静息时疼痛的平均差值为0.644(97.5%CI:-0.321至1.610),运动时疼痛的平均差值为0.806(97.5%CI:-0.402至2.014)。5例患者(10%)从WW组交叉至TEP组。两组在3个月内的次要结局相似。
对于腹股沟疼痛合并隐匿性腹股沟疝的患者,本试验未能证明干预后3个月时WW在缓解疼痛方面不劣于TEP修补术。然而,这一结果并未证实WW较差,因为在3个月内次要结局具有可比性,且早期进行TEP修补术存在过度治疗的风险。因此,作为一种诊断工具,至少3个月的WW策略对于确定哪些患者可能从手术中获益可能是合理的。