Endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent male unilateral XXXX : Are there differences in the outcome?

@entity1 @entity260 @entity158 @entity547 @entity169 @entity1118
INTRODUCTION: To date, there are no prospective randomized studies that compare the outcome of endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent @entity169 . It is therefore now attempted to answer that key question on the basis of registry data. @entity1 AND METHODS: In total, 20,624 @entity1 were enrolled between September 1, 2009, and April 31, 2013. Of these @entity1 , 18,142 (88.0%) had a primary and 2482 (12.0%) had a recurrent endoscopic repair. Only @entity1 with male @entity169 and with a 1-year follow-up were included. The dependent variables were intra- and @entity260 , reoperations, recurrence, and @entity1118 rates. The results of unadjusted analyses were verified via multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis did not reveal any significant differences in the intraoperative complications (1.28 vs 1.33%; p = 0.849); however, there were significant differences in the @entity260 (3.20 vs 4.03%; p = 0.036), the reoperation rate due to complications (0.84 vs 1.33%; p = 0.023), @entity158 at rest (4.08 vs 6.16%; p < 0.001), @entity158 on exertion (8.03 vs 11.44%; p < 0.001), @entity1118 requiring treatment (2.31 vs 3.83%; p < 0.001), and the recurrence rates (0.94 vs 1.45%; p = 0.0023). Multivariable analysis confirmed the significant impact of endoscopic repair of recurrent @entity547 on the outcome. CONCLUSION: Comparison of perioperative and 1-year outcome for endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent male @entity169 showed significant differences to the disadvantage of the recurrent operation. Therefore, endoscopic repair of recurrent @entity169 for particular competence on the part of the @entity547 surgeon.
