6533b825fe1ef96bd1283208

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of outcomes

Evangelos AnagnostouConstantine KaraliotasIoannis FouzasAlexandros DounavisGeorgia DedemadiGeorge SgourakisInes GockelArnold Radtke

subject

Malemedicine.medical_specialtyHernia InguinalCochrane Librarylaw.inventionRandomized controlled trialRecurrencelawmedicineHumansHerniaAgedbusiness.industryGeneral MedicineOdds ratioMiddle AgedSurgical Meshmedicine.diseaseSurgeryInguinal herniaTreatment OutcomeSurgical meshSeromaRelative riskFemaleLaparoscopySurgerybusiness

description

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of comparisons between laparoscopic and open mesh repairs in the setting of recurrent inguinal hernia. Methods The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for articles from 1990 to 2008. The present meta-analysis pooled the effects of outcomes of a total of 1,542 patients enrolled into 5 randomized controlled trials and 7 comparative studies, using classic and modern meta-analytic methods. Results Significantly fewer cases of hematoma/seroma formation were observed in the laparoscopic group in comparison with the Lichtenstein group (odds ratio, .38; .15–.96; P = .04). A matter of great importance is the higher relative risk of overall recurrence in the transabdominal preperitoneal group compared with the totally extraperitoneal group (relative risk, 3.25; 1.32–7.9; P = .01). Conclusions Laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia was equivalent in most of the analyzed outcomes.

yearjournalcountryeditionlanguage
2009-06-09The American Journal of Surgery
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.009