Skip to main content
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2026 Jan 20;18(1):e101888. doi: 10.7759/cureus.101888

Obturator Hernia: A Critical Appraisal of Treatment Strategies Based on 10 Cases and Current Literature: Towards a Pragmatic Surgical Algorithm

Yujo Kawashita 1,, Eri Daicho 1, Noriko Ikeda 1, Masaki Tateishi 1, Takashi Ueda 1
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC12917865  PMID: 41728396

Abstract

Obturator hernia is a rare pelvic hernia that predominantly affects elderly, thin women. Despite advances in imaging and surgical techniques, the optimal surgical approach remains controversial. We retrospectively analyzed 10 patients who underwent emergency surgery for an obturator hernia at our institution between January 2010 and August 2024. All patients were female with a median age of 88.9 years (range: 84-97). Six patients (60%) required bowel resection. Seven underwent open repairs, and three underwent laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair. One patient with perforated peritonitis died postoperatively. During a median follow-up of 32 months (range: 18-51), one recurrence occurred at 34 months in a patient who had undergone suture repair without mesh reinforcement. Based on our experience and a comprehensive literature review encompassing three systematic reviews/meta-analyses and one nationwide registry study, we propose a treatment algorithm centered on three principles: TAPP as the default approach, bowel viability as the central decision point, and a contamination-based repair strategy. Two illustrative cases demonstrate the clinical application of this algorithm.

Keywords: mesh repair, obstructed obturator hernia, open and laparoscopic surgery, small bowel resection, staged repair, transabdominal preperitoneal (tapp), treatment algorithm

Introduction

Obturator hernia accounts for 0.07-1% of all abdominal wall hernias [1,2]. The condition predominantly affects elderly, thin women because of the wider female pelvic outlet and age-related loss of preperitoneal fat in the obturator canal [3-6]. Among all abdominal wall hernias, the obturator hernia carries the highest mortality rate, ranging from 13% to 47% [1,7,8]. The classic Howship-Romberg sign is present in only 15-56% of cases, and this nonspecific presentation often leads to diagnostic delays [1,6,9]. A recent Danish nationwide registry study reported 14% 30-day mortality for emergency repairs [10]. With the aging population, the incidence has been gradually increasing [7]. Computed tomography (CT) has become the diagnostic gold standard, with preoperative detection rates exceeding 90% [11-15]. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown advantages of laparoscopic repair over open surgery, with reduced morbidity (odds ratio 0.29) and mortality (odds ratio 0.84) [1-3]. However, the rarity of this condition and its emergency presentation preclude randomized controlled trials, and consensus on the optimal approach remains elusive. We aimed to analyze our institutional experience and propose a practical treatment algorithm based on current evidence.

Materials and methods

This single-center retrospective case series included all consecutive patients who underwent emergency surgical repair for obturator hernia at Fukuoka Seishukai Hospital between January 2010 and August 2024. No patients were excluded. The study was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines and approved by our institutional review board. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical presentation, time from symptom onset to surgery, operative findings, surgical approach, repair method, operative time, postoperative complications (graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification), length of hospital stay, and recurrence. All patients underwent preoperative CT. The choice of surgical approach was at the discretion of the operating surgeon based on clinical assessment of bowel viability and patient condition. Patients were followed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and annually thereafter; data were supplemented by telephone interviews when clinic visits were not possible. Given the small sample size, we report only descriptive statistics.

We also performed a literature review focusing on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies published between 2010 and 2024. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library using the following search terms: 'obturator hernia' AND ('systematic review' OR 'meta-analysis' OR 'cohort study' OR 'case series' OR 'treatment' OR 'laparoscopic' OR 'open repair' OR 'mesh repair'). We will also include studies reporting on surgical management, outcomes, and treatment strategies for obturator hernia. Reference lists of identified articles were also screened for additional relevant publications.

Results

We identified 10 cases during the study period (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of 10 Obturator Hernia Cases.

Onset-Op: time from symptom onset to surgery; Necrosis: bowel necrosis requiring resection (+) or not (-); LOS: length of hospital stay; FU: follow-up; Conv: conversion to open; TAPP: transabdominal preperitoneal repair; Lap→Ant: laparoscopic converted to anterior approach. *Recurrence at 34 months. §Conv: conversion to open (initial laparoscopic approach converted to open laparotomy due to intraoperative findings). †Initial suture repair followed by elective mesh repair at eight weeks. ‡Cases 8 and 9 correspond to Illustrative Cases B and A.

Case Year Age (y) Onset-Op (h) Bowel Resection Approach Op time (min) Repair Complication LOS (d) FU (mo) Recur
1 2010 87 49 Yes Open 70 Suture Fatal - - -
2 2011 94 39 Yes Open 75 Suture Pneumonia 41 25 No
3 2012 88 25 No Open 103 Suture None 14 46 Yes*
4 2012 85 16 No Open 35 Suture Pneumonia 24 49 No
5 2015 88 37 Yes Open 60 Suture None 4 36 No
6 2017 91 25 Yes Conv§ 63 Suture† None 12 24 No
7 2019 84 14 No TAPP 40 Mesh None 11 51 No
8‡ 2021 89 15 No TAPP 55 Mesh None 8 32 No
9‡ 2021 86 41 Yes Lap→Ant 116 Mesh Plug None 19 18 No
10 2022 97 47 Yes Open 45 Suture Pneumonia 26 24 No

All patients were female, with a median age of 88.9 years (range: 84-97). The median time from symptom onset to surgery was 30.8 hours (range: 14-49). Six patients (60%) required bowel resection for intestinal necrosis. Seven patients underwent open repair via midline laparotomy, and three underwent laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair. One laparoscopic case was converted to an anterior approach for bowel resection (Case 9). Hernia defect closure consisted of suture repair in six cases and mesh repair in four (three flat mesh via TAPP, one plug mesh via anterior approach).

The mean operative time was 68.6 minutes (range, 35-116 minutes). Postoperative pneumonia occurred in three patients (30%), all managed with antibiotics alone without intensive care. One patient (Case 1) died on postoperative day one. She was an 87-year-old woman transferred from another hospital, already in septic shock from perforated peritonitis. Despite emergency laparotomy with bowel resection and hernia sac ligation, she did not recover. This case illustrates that mortality in obturator hernia is driven primarily by delayed diagnosis and advanced bowel necrosis rather than the surgical procedure itself. The mean hospital stay for survivors was 17.7 days (range: 4-41). Follow-up was complete in all nine survivors, with a median duration of 32 months (range: 18-51). One recurrence occurred at 34 months in a patient who had undergone suture repair without subsequent mesh reinforcement (Case 3).

Illustrative cases

We present two contrasting cases to illustrate our algorithm.

Case A: Bowel Resection With Mesh Repair (Case 9)

An 86-year-old nursing home resident presented with vomiting and abdominal pain. Her history included hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and old cerebral infarction. Vital signs were stable, and the abdomen was soft with mild tenderness. Laboratory studies were unremarkable: white blood cell count 6,997/μL (reference: 3,300-8,600) and C-reactive protein 0.02 mg/dL (reference: <0.14). CT revealed a right obturator hernia with small bowel incarceration (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Case A: Preoperative CT.

Figure 1

(A) Axial view showing right obturator hernia with incarcerated small bowel (arrowhead). (B) Coronal view.

At laparoscopy, ileal incarceration was confirmed, and the bowel was reduced using the water pressure technique via the Nelaton catheter. However, the reduced segment showed dark purple discoloration without peristalsis or mesenteric pulsation. We converted to an anterior approach through an inguinal incision, performed a segmental ileal resection with functional end-to-end anastomosis, and repaired the defect with a mesh plug. There was no perforation, and spillage was minimal. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classification system, this operative field was classified as Class II (clean-contaminated), defined as an operative wound in which the gastrointestinal tract is entered under controlled conditions without unusual contamination. The 2017 World Journal of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines and supporting systematic reviews indicate that synthetic mesh placement is acceptable in clean-contaminated fields (CDC Class II) without significantly increased risk of surgical site infection [16-18]. Given the patient's overall clinical stability, the absence of frank peritonitis, and the controlled nature of the resection and anastomosis, we determined that primary mesh repair was appropriate and safe (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Case A: Operative Findings.

Figure 2

(A) Laparoscopic view of ileal incarceration in the right obturator foramen. (B) Reduction using the water pressure technique. (C) Reduced bowel showing severe ischemic changes. (D) Mesh plug repair after conversion to anterior approach.

Operative time was 116 minutes. The patient was discharged on day 19 and remains recurrence-free at 18 months.

Case B: TAPP Repair With Bowel Preservation (Case 8)

An 89-year-old woman hospitalized for heart failure developed nausea and abdominal pain. CT showed a right obturator hernia with small bowel incarceration (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Case B: Preoperative CT.

Figure 3

(A) Axial view showing right obturator hernia with incarcerated terminal ileum (arrowhead). (B) Coronal view.

Laboratory studies showed mild inflammation: white blood cell count 13,792/μL and C-reactive protein 0.59 mg/dL. At laparoscopy, ileal incarceration was confirmed. Upon reduction, the bowel showed only mild ischemic changes with prompt color improvement and visible peristalsis; resection was unnecessary. We dissected the preperitoneal space and placed a 15×10 cm flat polypropylene mesh to cover the obturator foramen and inguinal regions, fixed with three tacks (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Case B: TAPP Repair.

Figure 4

(A) Laparoscopic view of ileal incarceration. (B) After reduction, the bowel showed mild ischemia with prompt color recovery. (C) Preperitoneal dissection. (D) Flat mesh (15×10 cm) covering the obturator foramen and inguinal regions.

Operative time was 55 minutes. She was discharged on day eight and remains recurrence-free at 32 months.

Discussion

Obturator hernia remains a formidable surgical emergency. Our series reflects the typical patient profile: elderly, thin women presenting with intestinal obstruction [1-7]. The 60% bowel resection rate and 10% mortality are consistent with published ranges of 15-50% and 13-47%, respectively [1,4,10,14,15].

Treatment has evolved considerably over the past decade. Three systematic reviews/meta-analyses now provide reasonable evidence for decision-making. Schizas et al. analyzed 725 patients from 47 studies and found that laparoscopic repair reduced morbidity (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.88) and mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.27-2.60) compared with open surgery [1]. Burla et al. showed lower recurrence rates with mesh than suture repair [2]. Holm et al. reviewed 561 patients and reported no recurrences among 299 laparoscopic mesh repairs, versus 10% recurrence with open suture repair [3].

Based on this evidence and our experience, we believe the key question is not "laparoscopic versus open" but "does the patient need bowel resection?" (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Treatment Algorithm.

Figure 5

Laparoscopy is the first choice when feasible. Bowel viability is assessed by color, peristalsis, mesenteric pulsation, and bleeding. Repair strategy depends on contamination grade (CDC classification). Staged mesh may be omitted in patients with limited life expectancy. TAPP: transabdominal preperitoneal repair; CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Figure created by the authors.

When bowel viability is preserved, laparoscopic TAPP repair provides several practical advantages. When resection is required, the contamination status, not the approach itself, should guide mesh usage. This perspective has direct implications for intraoperative decision-making.

We generally favor laparoscopic TAPP as the initial approach when technically feasible. This preference is supported by convergent evidence from multiple systematic reviews, which report lower morbidity and mortality and, notably, no recurrences in nearly 300 laparoscopic mesh repairs [1-3]. TAPP also allows direct assessment of bowel viability and contralateral inspection before committing to a repair strategy.

The critical decision point is bowel viability. We assess this intraoperatively by examining tissue color (pink versus dark purple/black), peristalsis, mesenteric pulsation, and bleeding from cut edges. When two or more criteria suggest ischemia, we resect. If the bowel is viable, primary mesh repair carries a low infection risk, as in Case B. If resection is required, mesh placement depends on contamination. The 2017 WSES guidelines permit synthetic mesh in clean-contaminated fields (CDC wound class II) but advise against it in frankly contaminated or dirty fields (class III-IV) [16]. A systematic review found no increase in surgical site infection with mesh in clean-contaminated cases [17,18].

Our approach to mesh use is therefore graduated. With frank perforation and peritonitis (CDC class III-IV), we perform suture repair and plan staged mesh reinforcement at 6-8 weeks once infection has resolved. This strategy reflects concern that mesh infection in frail elderly patients can have serious consequences. When resection is performed for ischemic but non-perforated bowel with limited spillage (CDC class II), primary mesh may be considered. Case A exemplifies this scenario, in which controlled resection without perforation permitted safe mesh plug placement.

The fatal case (Case 1) was transferred already in septic shock from perforated peritonitis, a situation where the outcome is poor regardless of surgical technique. The single recurrence (Case 3) occurred at 34 months in a patient with suture repair who did not undergo planned mesh reinforcement, underscoring the importance of eventual definitive repair.

TAPP offers specific advantages for obturator hernia beyond the general benefits of minimally invasive surgery. The pelvic visualization is excellent, facilitating safe dissection around the obturator neurovascular bundle [19-22]. The contralateral side can be inspected, which matters because bilateral or metachronous obturator hernias occur in 6-25% of patients [23-25]. In Case 9, initial laparoscopy revealed non-viable bowel and guided the decision to convert, illustrating the value of a laparoscopic-first approach even when definitive repair is not completed laparoscopically.

We assessed bowel viability by conventional clinical signs. These are subjective, and emerging technologies such as indocyanine green fluorescence angiography may offer more objective assessment, though data specific to obturator hernia remain limited [26].

Regarding mesh coverage, the HerniaSurge guidelines recommend at least 15×10 cm with 2-3 cm midline crossover [27]. We tailor coverage based on the inguinal floor: if weakness is suspected, we cover the entire myopectineal orifice; if the floor appears solid, we limit coverage to the obturator foramen with at least 3 cm overlap. For TAPP, we use flat polypropylene mesh. Mesh plugs via the anterior approach are an option but require careful positioning [28,29].

This study has several inherent limitations. First, the sample size was small (n = 10), and the retrospective design limits statistical power and generalizability. Second, the study period spanned 14 years (2010-2024), during which surgical techniques, patient selection, and perioperative management evolved substantially, introducing clinical heterogeneity. Importantly, the choice of surgical approach was determined by the surgeon's judgment rather than randomization. Patients with more severe disease or compromised clinical status were more likely to undergo open surgery, resulting in unavoidable selection bias. As a consequence, meaningful direct comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery within our cohort is not feasible. Therefore, conclusions regarding the relative advantages of laparoscopic repair are derived from external evidence, including published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, rather than from comparative analysis within our own series. Furthermore, the proposed algorithm represents an institutional approach and should be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating framework rather than a prospectively validated guideline.

Despite these limitations, several findings support the clinical relevance of the proposed algorithm. The demographic characteristics, surgical complexity, and outcomes of our cohort, including high resection rates and mortality, are consistent with those reported in the existing literature, suggesting that our series represents a typical clinical spectrum of this rare condition rather than an outlier population. In addition, the observed recurrence pattern reinforces the rationale for mesh reinforcement, aligning with prior reports.

Importantly, the algorithm is not derived solely from our limited case series but from a structured synthesis of accumulated institutional experience and evidence from published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. While the present study cannot establish the efficacy of the algorithm, it provides a literature-informed framework for decision-making in a clinical context where randomized controlled trials are impractical. As such, the algorithm should be viewed as a pragmatic proposal intended to guide clinical judgment and to serve as a foundation for future prospective validation.

Conclusions

We propose an algorithm for obturator hernia centered on three principles: TAPP as the default approach, bowel viability as the central decision point, and a contamination-based repair strategy. Primary mesh is appropriate for clean and clean-contaminated fields; staged repair is preferred when there is frank contamination. Bowel viability should be assessed by tissue color, peristalsis, mesenteric pulsation, and bleeding. Mesh coverage should be tailored to the condition of the inguinal floor. Multicenter studies are needed to validate this approach.

Disclosures

Human subjects: Informed consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Fukuoka Seishukai Hospital Ethics Committee issued approval FSHI-IRB-2026-027. This is to certify that the following research protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee) of Fukuoka Seishukai Hospital in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Biological Research Involving Human Subjects (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan). Study Title Obturator Hernia: A Critical Appraisal of Treatment Strategies Based on 10 Cases and Current Literature Principal Investigator Yujo Kawashita, MD Department of Endoscopic Surgery and Hernia Center Co-Investigators Masaki Tateishi, MD; Takashi Ueda, MD Study Type Retrospective observational study (case series) Review Type Expedited review Data Collection Period January 2010 – August 2024 Informed Consent Waived (opt-out method approved) Decision APPROVED Conditions of Approval: 1. As this is a retrospective observational study utilizing existing medical records, the requirement for individual written informed consent has been waived. An opt-out mechanism has been implemented in accordance with national ethical guidelines. 2. All patient data must be anonymized to prevent identification of individual subjects. No identifying information shall appear in any publication. 3. A study completion report must be submitted to the Ethics Committee upon conclusion of the research. This certificate confirms that the above-mentioned research has been conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Biological Research Involving Human Subjects (Japan), and all applicable regulations governing human subjects research. .

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Author Contributions

Concept and design:  Yujo Kawashita, Eri Daicho, Noriko Ikeda, Masaki Tateishi, Takashi Ueda

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Yujo Kawashita, Eri Daicho, Noriko Ikeda, Masaki Tateishi, Takashi Ueda

Drafting of the manuscript:  Yujo Kawashita, Eri Daicho, Noriko Ikeda, Masaki Tateishi, Takashi Ueda

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Yujo Kawashita, Eri Daicho, Noriko Ikeda, Masaki Tateishi, Takashi Ueda

Supervision:  Yujo Kawashita, Noriko Ikeda, Masaki Tateishi, Takashi Ueda

References

  • 1.Obturator hernias: a systematic review of the literature. Schizas D, Apostolou K, Hasemaki N, et al. Hernia. 2021;25:193–204. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02282-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Management and outcomes of obturator hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Burla MM, Gomes CP, Calvi I, et al. Hernia. 2023;27:795–806. doi: 10.1007/s10029-023-02808-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Laparotomy with suture repair is the most common treatment for obturator hernia: a scoping review. Holm MA, Fonnes S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406:1733–1738. doi: 10.1007/s00423-021-02293-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.A review of obturator hernia and a proposed algorithm for its diagnosis and treatment. Chang SS, Shan YS, Lin YJ, et al. World J Surg. 2005;29:450–454. doi: 10.1007/s00268-004-7664-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Obturator hernia. Embryology, anatomy, and surgical applications. Skandalakis LJ, Androulakis J, Colborn GL, Skandalakis JE. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10685145/ Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80:71–84. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6109(05)70398-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Clinical presentation of obturator hernia and review of the literature. Igari K, Ochiai T, Aihara A, et al. Hernia. 2010;14:409–413. doi: 10.1007/s10029-010-0658-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Diagnosis and treatment of obturator hernia: retrospective analysis of 86 clinical cases at a single institution. Li Z, Gu C, Wei M, et al. BMC Surg. 2021;21:124. doi: 10.1186/s12893-021-01125-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Case report: obturator hernia: diagnosis and surgical treatment. Li H, Cao X, Kong L. Front Surg. 2023;10:1159246. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1159246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Obturator hernia: clinical analysis of 16 cases and algorithm for its diagnosis and treatment. Rodríguez-Hermosa JI, Codina-Cazador A, Maroto-Genover A, et al. Hernia. 2008;12:289–297. doi: 10.1007/s10029-007-0328-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Epidemiology and surgical management of 184 obturator hernias: a nationwide registry-based cohort study. Holm MA, Baker JJ, Andresen K, et al. Hernia. 2023;27:1451–1459. doi: 10.1007/s10029-023-02891-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thirty-six cases of obturator hernia: does computed tomography contribute to postoperative outcome? Yokoyama Y, Yamaguchi A, Isogai M, et al. World J Surg. 1999;23:214–216. doi: 10.1007/pl00013176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Obturator hernia: Clinical analysis of 11 patients and review of the literature. Park J. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:0. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Obturator hernia: anatomy, embryology, diagnosis, and treatment. Petrie A, Tubbs RS, Matusz P, et al. Clin Anat. 2011;24:562–569. doi: 10.1002/ca.21097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.The diagnosis and treatment of retrograde intussusception: a single-centre experience. Zhang B, Wu D, Liu M, et al. BMC Surg. 2021;21:398. doi: 10.1186/s12893-021-01391-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Consistency of global recommendations regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Jacob S, Hameed A, Lam V, Pang TC. ANZ J Surg. 2021;91:1358–1363. doi: 10.1111/ans.16761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.2017 update of the WSES guidelines for emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias. Birindelli A, Sartelli M, Di Saverio S, et al. World J Emerg Surg. 2017;12:37. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases. Choi JJ, Palaniappa NC, Dallas KB, et al. Ann Surg. 2012;255:176–180. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822518e6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Surgical site infection in mesh repair for ventral hernia in contaminated field: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Maatouk M, Ben Safta Y, Mabrouk A, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33680450/ Hernia. 2023;27:261–273. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.02.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Laparoscopic reduction and repair for incarcerated obturator hernia: comparison with open surgery. Hayama S, Ohtaka K, Takahashi Y, et al. Hernia. 2015;19:809–814. doi: 10.1007/s10029-014-1328-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Is the laparoscopic approach feasible for reduction and herniorrhaphy in cases of acutely incarcerated/strangulated groin and obturator hernia?: 17-year experience from open to laparoscopic approach. Chihara N, Suzuki H, Sukegawa M, et al. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29:631–637. doi: 10.1089/lap.2018.0506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.The feasibility of laparoscopic management of incarcerated obturator hernia. Liu J, Zhu Y, Shen Y, et al. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:656–660. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5016-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Preoperative diagnosis of strangulated obturator hernia using ultrasonography. Yokoyama T, Munakata Y, Ogiwara M, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9240958/ Am J Surg. 1997;174:76–78. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(97)00025-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Obturator hernia: the Mayo Clinic experience. Nasir BS, Zendejas B, Ali SM, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22138700/ Hernia. 2012;16:315–319. doi: 10.1007/s10029-011-0895-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Comment to: the use of sterilized mosquito nets for hernioplasty: a systematic review. Stephenson BM, Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN. Hernia. 2013;17:289–290. doi: 10.1007/s10029-013-1065-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Obturator hernia as a frequent finding during laparoscopic pelvic exploration: a retrospective observational study. Susmallian S, Ezri T, Elis M, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27399109/ Surg Endosc. 2001;15:1564–1565. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Indocyanine green fluorescence-guided surgery in the emergency setting: the WSES international consensus position paper. De Simone B, Abu-Zidan FM, Boni L, et al. World J Emerg Surg. 2025;20:13. doi: 10.1186/s13017-025-00575-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.International guidelines for groin hernia management. The Hernia Surge Group. Hernia. 2018;22:1–165. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Totally extraperitoneal repair of obturator hernia. Shapiro K, Patel S, Choy C, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15095078/ Surg Endosc. 2004;18:954–956. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-8212-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Two-stage laparoscopic treatment for strangulated inguinal, femoral and obturator hernias: totally extraperitoneal repair followed by intestinal resection assisted by intraperitoneal laparoscopic exploration. Sasaki A, Takeuchi Y, Izumi K, et al. Hernia. 2016;20:483–488. doi: 10.1007/s10029-014-1272-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES