Premium
Laparoscopic or L ichtenstein repair for recurrent inguinal hernia: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Author(s) -
Yang Jun,
Tong Da Nian,
Yao Jing,
Chen Wei
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
anz journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.426
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1445-2197
pISSN - 1445-1433
DOI - 10.1111/ans.12010
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , inguinal hernia , meta analysis , cochrane library , odds ratio , patient satisfaction , laparoscopy , hernia , surgery , hernia repair , urinary retention , medline , political science , law
Background There is no clear answer regarding the use of laparoscopic techniques versus the Lichtenstein method for the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia. Objective The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopy versus the L ichtenstein repair by a meta‐analysis of available randomized controlled trials ( RCT s). Methods Databases, including P ub M ed, EMBASE , the C ochrane L ibrary, and the S cience C itation I ndex updated to M ay 2012, were searched. The main outcome measures were wound infections and haematoma, urinary retention, post‐operative chronic pain and recurrence. A meta‐analysis of included RCT s was performed. Results Five RCT s, comprising a total of 427 patients, were included. Although most of the analysed outcomes were similar between groups, wound infection rates and post‐operative chronic pain occurred less frequently in the laparoscopic group than in the L ichtenstein group (odds ratio: 0.28, 95% CI : 0.08–0.97; P = 0.05; odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI : 0.17–0.68; P = 0.002, respectively). Conclusion The laparoscopic approach to the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia is superior to the Lichtenstein hernioplasty in some aspects that affect patient satisfaction.