Simon D Lai, Nicolas J Smith, Brittany Park, Alain Vandal, Andrew D MacCormick
{"title":"Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Emergency Repair of Groin Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Simon D Lai, Nicolas J Smith, Brittany Park, Alain Vandal, Andrew D MacCormick","doi":"10.1002/wjs.70076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although open repair has historically been the preferred approach over laparoscopic repair for acutely strangulated and incarcerated groin hernias, the laparoscopic approach is gaining popularity. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the safety and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open groin hernia repair in the emergency setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergency groin hernia repair in adult patients. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included operative time, postoperative complications, recurrence, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open repair. Risk of bias was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen articles (4 prospective and 9 retrospective cohort studies) were included, with a total of 38,659 patients enrolled. Laparoscopic repair resulted in shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.96 days [95% CI -4.91, -1.01] and p = 0.0074) and lower risk of wound infection (RR 0.29 [95% CI 0.20, 0.43] and p < 0.0001]. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding operative time (p = 0.1006), risk of seroma formation (p = 0.3142), and risk of respiratory complication (p = 0.9880). Rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open repair as recorded in five studies was 2.78% ([95% CI 0.60, 11.92]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Emergency laparoscopic repair of groin hernias results in shorter length of hospital stay and lower risks of postoperative morbidity and mortality, with no difference in operative time when compared to open repair. Although further large-scale prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials may be required to draw definitive conclusionsregarding the optimal surgical approach, laparoscopic repair of groin hernias appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to conventional open repair in the acute setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2733-2741"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12515023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Although open repair has historically been the preferred approach over laparoscopic repair for acutely strangulated and incarcerated groin hernias, the laparoscopic approach is gaining popularity. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the safety and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open groin hernia repair in the emergency setting.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergency groin hernia repair in adult patients. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included operative time, postoperative complications, recurrence, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open repair. Risk of bias was assessed.
Results: Thirteen articles (4 prospective and 9 retrospective cohort studies) were included, with a total of 38,659 patients enrolled. Laparoscopic repair resulted in shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.96 days [95% CI -4.91, -1.01] and p = 0.0074) and lower risk of wound infection (RR 0.29 [95% CI 0.20, 0.43] and p < 0.0001]. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding operative time (p = 0.1006), risk of seroma formation (p = 0.3142), and risk of respiratory complication (p = 0.9880). Rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open repair as recorded in five studies was 2.78% ([95% CI 0.60, 11.92]).
Conclusion: Emergency laparoscopic repair of groin hernias results in shorter length of hospital stay and lower risks of postoperative morbidity and mortality, with no difference in operative time when compared to open repair. Although further large-scale prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials may be required to draw definitive conclusionsregarding the optimal surgical approach, laparoscopic repair of groin hernias appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to conventional open repair in the acute setting.
背景:尽管在历史上开放修补术比腹腔镜修补术更适用于急性绞窄和嵌顿腹股沟疝,但腹腔镜修补术正越来越受欢迎。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在探讨急诊腹腔镜和开放式腹股沟疝修补术的安全性和临床结果。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane Library和Web of Science,检索比较腹腔镜和开放式急诊成人腹股沟疝修补术临床效果的文章。主要观察指标为住院时间。次要结果包括手术时间、术后并发症、复发、再手术、术后死亡率和从腹腔镜到开放式修复的转换率。评估偏倚风险。结果:纳入13篇文章(4篇前瞻性研究和9篇回顾性队列研究),共纳入38,659例患者。腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术的住院时间较短(MD -2.96天[95% CI -4.91, -1.01], p = 0.0074),伤口感染风险较低(RR 0.29 [95% CI 0.20, 0.43], p < 0.05)。结论:腹腔镜下腹股沟疝急诊修补术的住院时间较短,术后发病率和死亡率风险较低,手术时间与开放式修补术比较无差异。虽然需要进一步的大规模前瞻性队列研究和随机对照试验来得出关于最佳手术方法的明确结论,但在急性情况下,腹腔镜腹股沟疝修复术似乎是一种安全可行的替代传统开放修复术。
期刊介绍:
World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.