Poster presentation

Aim: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open inguinal or femoral hernia performed in emergency settings.Method: A retrospective analysis was conducted on all patients (n = 298) who underwent emergency inguinal or femoral hernia repair at our centre between 2015 and 2024.After exclusion criteria were applied, 154 patients were included (open = 122, laparoscopic = 32).Demographics including gender, age, BMI, smoking habit, history of COPD, and CAPD were recorded.Hernia characteristics including type, laterality, and recurrence status were also documented.Efficacy and safety were assessed by operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications, including medical morbidity, acute urinary retention, seroma or haematoma formation, persistent pain, recurrence, reintervention, and mortality.Comparative analyses were performed using appropriate statistical tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.Results: No statistically significant demographics differences were found between the open and laparoscopic group.Bilateral hernias and recurrent hernias were found more frequently managed laparoscopically.There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, blood loss, or postoperative complication rates between the two groups.The laparoscopic group demonstrated a significantly shorter hospital stay (mean 4.3 vs. 8.3 days, p < 0.05).Conclusion: Laparoscopic inguinal or femoral hernia repair in emergency settings appears to be as safe and effective as open repair.It does not increase operative time or complication rates, with added advantage of reduced hospital stay.These findings support emergency laparoscopic groin hernia repair as a feasible alternative to open repair for appropriately selected patients.