To Close or Not to Close? A Meta-Analysis on Fascial Closure of Port Sites in Laparoscopic Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Chenglou Zhu, Wenhan Liu
{"title":"To Close or Not to Close? A Meta-Analysis on Fascial Closure of Port Sites in Laparoscopic Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.","authors":"Chenglou Zhu, Wenhan Liu","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of fascial closure (FC) compared with nonfascial closure (NFC) in reducing trocar-site hernia (TSH) and improving postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic metabolic and bariatric surgery (LMBS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. Five major databases were searched up to November 2025. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies comparing FC versus NFC in LMBS were included. Primary outcome was TSH incidence; secondary outcomes included trocar-site bleeding, wound healing, operative time, and postoperative weight loss. Effect sizes were calculated using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies (1 RCT and 3 observational studies) involving 1127 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed no significant increase in TSH with NFC compared with FC (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.81-3.65, P =0.16). FC did not significantly decrease trocar-site bleeding (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.41-6.72, P =0.47) or improve wound healing (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.53-2.28, P =0.79). No differences were observed in operative time (MD: -6.96 min, 95% CI: -35.51 to 21.59, P =0.63) or postoperative weight loss. One RCT reported substantially increased postoperative pain associated with FC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence does not support a clear clinical advantage of FC in reducing TSH or improving postoperative outcomes in LMBS. Considering the potential for increased postoperative pain and substantial interstudy heterogeneity, decisions regarding FC should be individualized. Larger multicenter RCTs with standardized techniques and longer follow-up are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001449","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of fascial closure (FC) compared with nonfascial closure (NFC) in reducing trocar-site hernia (TSH) and improving postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic metabolic and bariatric surgery (LMBS).

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. Five major databases were searched up to November 2025. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies comparing FC versus NFC in LMBS were included. Primary outcome was TSH incidence; secondary outcomes included trocar-site bleeding, wound healing, operative time, and postoperative weight loss. Effect sizes were calculated using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI.

Results: Four studies (1 RCT and 3 observational studies) involving 1127 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed no significant increase in TSH with NFC compared with FC (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.81-3.65, P =0.16). FC did not significantly decrease trocar-site bleeding (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.41-6.72, P =0.47) or improve wound healing (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.53-2.28, P =0.79). No differences were observed in operative time (MD: -6.96 min, 95% CI: -35.51 to 21.59, P =0.63) or postoperative weight loss. One RCT reported substantially increased postoperative pain associated with FC.

Conclusions: Current evidence does not support a clear clinical advantage of FC in reducing TSH or improving postoperative outcomes in LMBS. Considering the potential for increased postoperative pain and substantial interstudy heterogeneity, decisions regarding FC should be individualized. Larger multicenter RCTs with standardized techniques and longer follow-up are warranted.

关门还是不关门?腹腔镜下代谢和减肥手术中肝部位筋膜关闭的meta分析。
目的:本研究旨在系统评价筋膜闭合(FC)与非筋膜闭合(NFC)在腹腔镜下代谢与减肥手术(LMBS)中减少套管针部位疝(TSH)和改善术后预后的有效性。方法:本系统评价和荟萃分析遵循PRISMA指南,并在PROSPERO注册。截至2025年11月,对五个主要数据库进行了检索。纳入了随机对照试验和高质量观察性研究,比较了FC和NFC在LMBS中的作用。主要结局是TSH发病率;次要结果包括套管针部位出血、伤口愈合、手术时间和术后体重减轻。使用比值比(OR)和95% CI的平均差异(MD)计算效应量。结果:纳入4项研究(1项RCT和3项观察性研究),共1127例患者。合并分析显示,与FC相比,NFC组TSH无显著升高(OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.81-3.65, P=0.16)。FC没有显著减少套管针部位出血(OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.41-6.72, P=0.47)或改善伤口愈合(OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.53-2.28, P=0.79)。在手术时间(MD: -6.96 min, 95% CI: -35.51 ~ 21.59, P=0.63)和术后体重减轻方面均无差异。一项随机对照试验报告了与FC相关的术后疼痛明显增加。结论:目前的证据并不支持FC在降低TSH或改善LMBS术后预后方面具有明确的临床优势。考虑到术后疼痛增加的可能性和大量的研究间异质性,关于FC的决定应该个体化。采用标准化技术的大型多中心随机对照试验和更长的随访是有必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书