Dataset Information

Laparoscopic Hernia Repair with the Extraperitoneal Approach versus Open Hernia Repair in Pediatric Inguinal Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic hernia repair with the extraperitoneal approach in pediatric inguinal hernias.

Summary background data

Inguinal hernia repair is the most common operation in pediatric surgical practice. Although open hernia repair (OHR) is a well-established procedure with good outcomes, studies have reported acceptable or even better outcomes of laparoscopic hernia repair with the extraperitoneal approach (LHRE). However, a meta-analysis comparing LHRE with OHR is lacking.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies (prospective or retrospective). Outcomes were metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH), hernia recurrence, surgical site infection, operation time, and hospitalization length. A meta-analysis was performed, and risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.

Results

Five RCTs and 21 comparative studies involving 24,479 patients were included. Lower MCIH incidence (RR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.17; p < 0.00001) and a trend of shorter operation time (WMD: -11.90 min, 95% CI: -16.63 to -7.44; p < 0.00001) were found in the LHRE group. No significant differences in ipsilateral recurrence hernias, surgical site infection, and length of hospitalization were found between the groups.

Conclusions

LHRE presented lower MCIH incidence and shorter operation times, with no increase in hernia recurrence, surgical site infection, or length of hospitalization. As more surgeons are increasingly becoming familiar with LHRE, LHRE would be a feasible and effective choice for pediatric inguinal hernia repair.

SUBMITTER: Huang FH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8781267 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children is increasingly performed as it allows contralateral inspection and potentially results in shorter operation time and less complications. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the superiority of laparoscopic versus open hernia repair is lacking.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed querying PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases. RCTs comparing laparoscopic with open hernia repair in children were considered eligible, without year and language restrictions. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the laparoscopic suturing technique (i.e., intracorporeal or extracorporeal).ResultsEight RCTs (n = 733 patients; age range 4 months-16 years) were included in this meta-analysis. Laparoscopic (LH) and open (OH) hernia repair was performed in 375 and 358 patients, respectively. Complications (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.79), recurrences (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.88), and MCIH rates (four RCTs, n = 343; pooled OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.86) were not different between the groups. LH resulted in shorter bilateral operation time (Five RCTs, n = 194; weighted mean difference (WMD) - 7.19, 95% CI - 10.04 to - 4.34). Unilateral operation time, length of hospital stay, and time to recovery were similar. There was insufficient evidence to assess postoperative pain and wound cosmesis, and evidence of substantial heterogeneity between the included studies. Subgroup analyses demonstrated less complications and shorter unilateral operation time for extracorporeal suturing and shorter length of hospital stay for intracorporeal suturing.Conclusions and relevanceNo definite conclusions to decide on the superiority of one of either treatment strategies can yet be drawn from the available literature. There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity and the clinical relevance of most estimated effects is very limited.