Page 33 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgeons

Maulana M Ansari
Table 7: Anatomy of PRS in the consecutive bilateral inguinal hernias (n = 8) in patients who underwent TEPP hernioplasty
PRS extent PRS extent subtypes PRS morphology PRS extent and morphology
Right side Left side Right side Left side Right side Left side Right side Left side
IC IC NIC NIC PT PT NPT NPT
IC 1C NIC NIC WT WT NWT NWT
C C C C GA PT* CGA CPT*
C IC* C NIC* WT WT CWT NWT*
C IC* C NIC* WT GA* CWT NGA*
IC IC* LIC NIC* WT WT LWT NWT*
IC IC NIC NIC PT WT* NPT NWT*
IC IC LIC NIC* WT WT LWT NWT*
*Different PRS type on contralateral side

Table 8: Age of patients with mirror and nonmirror anatomy of PRS on two sides of the body in patients with bilateral hernias
Anatomy Type n % Age, mean ± SD (range) years CID t-value Sig. (2-tailed) p-value
PRS extent Mirror 4 50 47.5 ± 10.40 (35–60) −24.925 to 7.9253 1.2663 0.2524 >0.05
Nonmirror 4 50 56.00 ± 8.49 (45–65)
PRS morphology Mirror 5 62.5 56.00 ± 8.49 (45–65) −22.754 to 23.4139 0.0350 0.9732 >0.05
Nonmirror 3 37.5 55.67 ± 18.88 (35–72)
PRS extent and Mirror 7 87.5 53.57 ± 10.83 (35–65) NA NA NA NA
morphology Nonmirror 1 12.5 72
NA: t-test not applicable due to n < 2 in one group; CID: Confidence interval of difference; t: independent-sample t-test value; Sig.:
Significance value; p > 0.05: not significant

Table 9: The BMI of patients with mirror and nonmirror anatomy of PRS on two sides of the body in patients with bilateral hernias
Anatomy Type n % BMI, mean ± SD (range) kg/m 2 CID t- value Sig. (2-tailed) p-value
PRS extent Mirror 4 50 21.38 ± 0.80 (20.5–22.4) −3.285 to 1.4453 0.9517 0.3780 >0.05
Nonmirror 4 50 22.30 ± 1.76 (202–24.4)
PRS morphology Mirror 5 62.5 21.88 ± 1.74 (20.2–24.4) −2.550 to 2.7701 0.1012 0.9227 >0.05
Nonmirror 3 37.5 21.77 ± 0.77 (21.1–22.4)
PRS extent and Mirror 7 87.5 21.77 ± 0.65 (21.1–22.4) NA NA NA NA
morphology Nonmirror 1 12.5 21.84
NA: t-test not applicable due to n < 2 in one group; CID: Confidence interval of difference; t: independent-sample t-test value; Sig.:
Significance value; p > 0.05: not significant

classical incomplete (NIC) in 2 cases, and long incomplete his BMI was comparable with mean BMI (21.77 ± SD 0.65;
2
(LIC) vs classical incomplete (NIC) in 2 cases) (Table 7). 21.1–22.4 kg/m ) (Tables 8 and 9).
In only 5 out of 8 cases, the PRS morphology was
mirror image on the two sides of the body (WT both Relation of PRS Anatomy with Profession
sides in 4 cases, and PT in 1 case), and in the remaining Distribution of various types of the PRS among the
3 cases, the PRS morphology was not mirror image (GA different kinds of professional workers is shown in the
vs PA in 1 case; tendinous vs GA in 1 case; and PA vs WT Graph 2. Pearson Chi-squared analysis did not reveal
in 1 case) (Table 7). any significant correlation between the classical/variant
In terms of both the PRS extent and morphology, the PRS and the nature of work (R = 3.466, df 5, Sig. 0.629,
mean age and BMI of patients did not differ significantly p > 0.05). Further, Pearson chi-squared analysis also did
(p > 0.05) between the two subgroups of the mirror and not reveal any significant correlation between the 12
nonmirror anatomy (Tables 8 and 9). In other words, the PRS subtypes (the classical 1, and the variant 11) and
PRS anatomy did not tend to differ on the two sides of the the nature of patients’ work (R = 46.685, df 55, Sig. 0.780,
body with respect to the age or BMI of the individuals. p > 0.05) (Graph 3).
In patients undergoing bilateral TEPP hernioplasty, Moreover, the likelihood ratio and linear-by-linear
asymmetry of both the PRS extent and morphology was association were also found statistically insignificant
seen in only one case of a 72-year-old retired person with among the 12 subtypes of the PRS with respect to the
2
BMI of 21.8 kg/m . The patient with twin asymmetry of patients’ occupation (likelihood ratio: R = 42.283, df 55,
PRS extent and morphology was much older than the Sig. 0.895, p > 0.05; linear-by-linear association: R = 0.330,
age (mean age 53.57 ± SD 10.83; 35–65 years), although df 1, Sig. 0.566, p > 0.05) (Graph 3).
20