Incidence and risk factors of inguinal hernia after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Table 4 Relationships between surgical and pathological factors and incidence of inguinal hernia (IH) developing after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) (N = 307)

Surgical and pathological factors		Incidence of IH after RARP
Surgical and pathological factors		No	Yes	P value
Surgeon experience (cases)	Low (<40)	193 (63%)	27 (9%)	0.019
Surgeon experience (cases)	High (≥40)	84 (27%)	3 (1%)	0.019
Console time (min)	<183	137 (45%)	14 (5%)	0.771
Console time (min)	≥183	140 (46%)	16 (5%)	0.771
Nerve sparing	None	193 (63%)	19 (6%)	0.475
Nerve sparing	Performed^a	84 (27%)	11 (4%)	0.475
Lymph node dissection	None	219 (71%)	25 (8%)	0.582
Lymph node dissection	Performed	58 (19%)	5 (2%)	0.582
Recovery of continence after surgery^b	Absent	174 (56%)	27 (8%)	0.002
After surgery (at 3 months)^c	Present	102 (33%)	3 (2%)	0.002
Recovery of continence^b	Absent	97 (39%)	19 (8%)	0.016
After surgery (at 6 months)^d	Present	125 (50%)	9 (3%)	0.016
Prostate weight^e (g)	<40	133 (43%)	17 (6%)	0.368
Prostate weight^e (g)	≥40	144 (47%)	13 (4%)	0.368
pT stage	≤pT2	181 (59%)	24 (8%)	0.106
pT stage	≥pT3	96 (31%)	6 (2%)	0.106
Resection margin	Absent	209 (68%)	24 (8%)	0.580
Resection margin	Present	68 (22%)	6 (2%)	0.580

^aThree were treated with bilateral nerve preservation, and the remaining 95 had unilateral nerve preservation
^b“Recovery of continence” was defined as lack of necessity for using pads for urinary leakage
^c N = 306
^d N = 250
^eProstate weight refers to the weight of the resected prostate. Pearson’s chi-square tests were used for statistical analyses

ISSN: 1477-7819