Does Tension-Free Herniorrhaphy or Laparoscopic Herniorrhaphy Achieve Equal or Better Recurrence Rates and Lower Costs While Achieving Equivalent Outcomes for Hernia Patients?

NCT ID: NCT00032448

Last Updated: 2011-04-14

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

2200 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

1998-10-31

Study Completion Date

2004-06-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Inguinal hernia is one of the most common worldwide afflictions of men. The presence of an inguinal hernia is indication for its repair. Approximately 700,000 hernia repairs are performed in the U.S. each year, and this procedure accounts for 10% of all general surgery procedures in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) (10,000 inguinal herniorrhaphies performed per year). There are many different techniques currently in use for repairing inguinal hernias and with the advent of laparoscopy, yet another technique is being advocated. Laparoscopic repair has been reported in some studies to be superior to open repair because of less pain and earlier return to work. However, laparoscopic repair requires a general or regional anesthetic and expensive equipment and supplies to perform. There is also evidence that open tension-free mesh repair may have results similar to laparoscopic repair for these patient centered outcome measures. The general acceptance of this procedure, especially in the VHA, has not been uniform. Furthermore, no randomized trial of sufficient size and power to be conclusive has been done to set forth the operative "gold standard" for hernia repair.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Primary Hypothesis: Open tension-free herniorrhaphy when compared with laparoscopic herniorrhaphy will achieve equal or better recurrence rates and lower costs while achieving equivalent outcomes for patient-centered measures.

Secondary Hypotheses:

Intervention: Patients randomized to open repair will undergo a standardized tension-free herniorrhaphy with prosthesis (method of Lichtenstein). Patients randomized to laparoscopic herniorrhaphy will undergo a standardized preperitoneal repair with prosthesis, using either a transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach. During the implementation period of the trial, a preliminary laboratory session will be conducted with all site PIs to standardize herniorrhaphy techniques, reach consensus on all aspects of perioperative patient management (including postoperative patient instructions, follow-up schedules, definitions of recurrence and complications), and to ensure that the site PI is thoroughly familiar with the protocol.

Each site will be visited by one of two expert surgeons (the Study Chair or a Co-PI surgeon) to observe the operative procedures and ensure that participating surgeons adhere to the protocol in all respects. The first visit will take place in the first 6 months of the study and then as needed thereafter, based on routine examination of operative records randomly selected from each site (5 open and 5 laparoscopic herniorrhaphies, and, if appropriate, viewing of videotapes of the laparoscopic procedures).

Primary Outcomes: Hernia recurrence rate.

Study Abstract:

Background: Inguinal hernia is one of the most common worldwide afflictions of men. The presence of an inguinal hernia is indication for its repair. Approximately 700,000 hernia repairs are performed in the U.S. each year, and this procedure accounts for 10% of all general surgery procedures in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) (10,000 inguinal herniorrhaphies performed per year). There are many different techniques currently in use for repairing inguinal hernias and with the advent of laparoscopy, yet another technique is being advocated. Laparoscopic repair has been reported in some studies to be superior to open repair because of less pain and earlier return to work. However, laparoscopic repair requires a general or regional anesthetic and expensive equipment and supplies to perform. There is also evidence that open tension-free mesh repair may have results similar to laparoscopic repair for these patient centered outcome measures. The general acceptance of this procedure, especially in the VHA, has not been uniform. Furthermore, no randomized trial of sufficient size and power to be conclusive has been done to set forth the operative gold standard for hernia repair.

Objectives: To determine whether open tension-free herniorrhaphy when compared with laparoscopic herniorrhaphy can achieve equal or better recurrence rates and lower costs while achieving equivalent outcomes for patient-centered measures.

Methods: This multi-center VA cooperative study is enrolling 2200 men with inguinal hernia and randomizing them to one of two operative techniques: open tension-free (Lichtenstein) repair, or laparoscopic preperitoneal repair. The primary outcome measure is recurrence at two years. Secondary outcome measures are complications, pain, time to return to normal activities, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, caregiver burden, and cost. The role of comorbidity in the outcome will also be determined. The sample size will permit at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3% in 2-year recurrence rates between the two surgical procedures. Fourteen VAMCs are randomizing the 2200 patients over a 3-year accrual period. The study will also have a 2-year follow-up period. All patients will be followed to the end of the study so that follow-up will range from 2-5 years (average 3.5 years).

On November 29, 2001, the Hines Cooperative Studies Human Rights Committee and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board met to review the data from CSP #456. Both committees determined that there were sufficient data to complete the trial without enrolling any additional patients and recommended that enrollment be stopped. There were no safety concerns. Approximately 2,165 patients of a targeted 2,200 had been enrolled at this point. All sites were notified of this within 24 hours of the action.

Main Manuscript:

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Hernia

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

1

Open and laparoscopic herniorrhaphy

Group Type OTHER

Standardized tension-free herniorrhaphy with prosthesis

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Compare the effect of two typs of operative treatment of inguinal hernia.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Standardized tension-free herniorrhaphy with prosthesis

Compare the effect of two typs of operative treatment of inguinal hernia.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

Men with inguinal hernia.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

MALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

American College of Surgeons

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

US Department of Veterans Affairs

FED

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Department of Veterans Affairs

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Leigh A. Neumayer

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

VA Medical Center, Birmingham

Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Central Arkansas VHS Eugene J. Towbin Healthcare Ctr, Little Rock

No. Little Rock, Arkansas, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, San Francisco

San Francisco, California, United States

Site Status

VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, West LA

West Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, Tampa

Tampa, Florida, United States

Site Status

VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore

Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Jamaica Plain Campus

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Detroit

Detroit, Michigan, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Durham

Durham, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

WJB Dorn Veterans Hospital, Columbia

Columbia, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Memphis

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

VA North Texas Health Care System, Dallas

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (152)

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City

Salt Lake City, Utah, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W; Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 456 Investigators. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med. 2004 Apr 29;350(18):1819-27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040093. Epub 2004 Apr 25.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 15107485 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

456

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Treatment of Occult Inguinal Hernias
NCT04815707 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING PHASE2
Repair of Inguinal Hernia
NCT06514859 RECRUITING NA