Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy is an effective method to correct an inguinal hernia. It can be offered safely to patients undergoing other abdominal procedures. The TAPP, IPOM, and EXTRA procedures appear to be equally effective. A controlled randomized trial is needed to compare this procedure with conventional inguinal herniorrhaphy.

The TEP approach is an effective option for the treatment of bilateral inguinal hernia when performed by experienced surgeons.

These preliminary data show that laparoscopic repair of recurrent inguinal hernia is a safe alternative procedure with acceptable rates of recurrence and complications.

This strategy is a reasonable alternative to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (1) when the cholangiogram is questionably positive, (2) when prolonged anesthesia (poor-risk patient) should be avoided, (3) when the equipment for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is not available, and (4) when spontaneous stone passage seems likely. Postoperative endoscopic retrograde sphincterotomy with stone extraction is facilitated when it becomes necessary because a guide wire can be introduced through the catheter.

The impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme in emergency colorectal surgery has not yet been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and the results of patients included in an ERAS protocol following emergency colon surgery for left colon perforation. For this purpose, patients with a low to moderate risk of mortality, according to a Peritonitis Severity Score (PSS), and treated with an ERAS protocol (ERAS group) after emergency surgery for left colon perforation were compared for a period of 40 months (March 2014-June 2017) with a control group of patients treated with conventional care (CC group) during the 38 months prior to implementation of the new ERAS protocol (January 2011-February 2014). The main endpoint was 90-day postoperative morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Secondary endpoints included length of postoperative hospital stay, 90-day readmission rate, protocol compliance and mortality. Fifty patients were included in the study, 29 in the ERAS group and 21 in the CC group. There were no significant differences between the groups in the demographic data or in the operative characteristics. A reduction in the incidence of postoperative complications (20.7% vs. 38%; p > 0.05) and in the postoperative hospital stay (7.7 + /-3.85 vs. 10.9 + /-5.6 days; p = 0.009) were observed in the ERAS group. The 90day readmission rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (2 vs. 1). No 90-day mortality was observed in either group. The ERAS group showed better results than the CC group in protocol compliance. We conclude that ERAS protocols are feasible and help to reduce morbidity and length of hospital stay without adversely affecting the rate of readmission or mortality.