AB129. SOH21AS019. Outdated terminology in inguinal hernia description: the terms ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ should be abandoned—a literature review
General Poster Session

AB129. SOH21AS019. Outdated terminology in inguinal hernia description: the terms ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ should be abandoned—a literature review

Julie-Therese Clifford1, Dermot Hehir1,2

1University of Limerick, School of Medicine, Faculty of Education & Health Services, Limerick, Ireland; 2Department of General Surgery, Midlands Regional University Hospital Tullamore, Tullamore, Ireland


Background: Repair of inguinal hernias remain one of the most routinely performed procedures in general surgery. Despite major advances in technique, we continue to employ classification systems dating back to the 19th century, which classify inguinal hernias as “direct” or “indirect” based on their location with respect to the inferior epigastric artery. The purpose of this review was to examine the clinical sensitivity and utility of classifying inguinal hernias as “direct” or “indirect”.

Methods: The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, JSTOR, JAMA Network and Google Scholar. Reviews published in English, German and Dutch were analysed. To appreciate the historical element, data from 1762 to 2020 was studied. A total of 43 articles were further evaluated.

Results: Several studies have demonstrated poor clinical sensitivity associated with the terms “direct” and “indirect” inguinal hernias at a pre-operative level; with some studies demonstrating a pre-operative accuracy level as low as 56%. These results are further complicated by variable patient anatomy and disparity amongst textbook definitions of the anatomical location of the deep inguinal ring.

Conclusions: Review of the literature would suggest the terms “direct” and “indirect” in relation to the inferior epigastric artery are inaccurate and this vessel is merely a passive anatomical structure in the herniation field. The ongoing utilisation of antiquated anatomical principles is in direct opposition with our enhanced, modern-day understanding of inguinal anatomy. We believe from teaching, practical and comparative research perspectives it is time to revise our classification of inguinal hernias to reflect current anatomical knowledge.

Keywords: Aetiology of inguinal hernias; classification of inguinal hernias; direct and indirect inguinal hernias; inguinal anatomy; inguinal hernias


Acknowledgments

Funding: None.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.


doi: 10.21037/map-21-ab129
Cite this abstract as: Clifford JT, Hehir D. SOH21AS019. Outdated terminology in inguinal hernia description: the terms ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ should be abandoned—a literature review. Mesentery Peritoneum 2021;5:AB129.

Download Citation