腹股沟疝局麻或全麻下完全腹膜外手术与Lichtenstein手术的比较:一项荟萃分析。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Hernia Pub Date : 2025-08-04 DOI:10.1007/s10029-025-03424-6
Haorui Zha, Han Yan, Yingnan Hu, Ruihan Li, Yicheng Wang, Junwen Hu, Dian Yu, Weihan Zhu, Xianghou Zheng, Jingyi Tang, Wei Zhang
{"title":"腹股沟疝局麻或全麻下完全腹膜外手术与Lichtenstein手术的比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Haorui Zha, Han Yan, Yingnan Hu, Ruihan Li, Yicheng Wang, Junwen Hu, Dian Yu, Weihan Zhu, Xianghou Zheng, Jingyi Tang, Wei Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s10029-025-03424-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis compared totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic repair with open Lichtenstein repair performed under local or general anaesthesia for unilateral inguinal hernia, asking whether the surgical or anaesthetic approach affects postoperative safety, pain and functional recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched to 1 April 2025. Eighteen randomized and observational studies comprising 4302 patients met predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed or randomeffects models; heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses and publication bias were assessed.​.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant recurrence difference between TEP and Lichtenstein (RR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.51, 1.40]). TEP significantly reduced early-Stage Pain (RR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.49, 0.79]), wound infection (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.91]) and accelerated return to normal activities (MD = -4.44, 95% CI [-6.06, -2.85]). Hematoma, seroma and hospital stay were similar. TEP had longer operative time (MD = 8.22 min, 95%CI[1.00,15.44]), but this gap disappeared in post-2013 studies. Subgroup analysis found that the lower infection risk of TEP was only significant when compared with Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.08, 0.96]).Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results, and no publication bias was detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TEP and Lichtenstein repair are comparably safe and effective for inguinal hernia repair. TEP may reduce postoperative pain and wound infections, whereas Lichtenstein repair with local anesthesia is suitable for high-risk cardiopulmonary patients. Surgical choice depends on patient, anesthesia, and expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":13168,"journal":{"name":"Hernia","volume":"29 1","pages":"246"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of totally extraperitoneal versus Lichtenstein operation under local or general anesthesia for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Haorui Zha, Han Yan, Yingnan Hu, Ruihan Li, Yicheng Wang, Junwen Hu, Dian Yu, Weihan Zhu, Xianghou Zheng, Jingyi Tang, Wei Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10029-025-03424-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis compared totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic repair with open Lichtenstein repair performed under local or general anaesthesia for unilateral inguinal hernia, asking whether the surgical or anaesthetic approach affects postoperative safety, pain and functional recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched to 1 April 2025. Eighteen randomized and observational studies comprising 4302 patients met predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed or randomeffects models; heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses and publication bias were assessed.​.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant recurrence difference between TEP and Lichtenstein (RR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.51, 1.40]). TEP significantly reduced early-Stage Pain (RR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.49, 0.79]), wound infection (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.91]) and accelerated return to normal activities (MD = -4.44, 95% CI [-6.06, -2.85]). Hematoma, seroma and hospital stay were similar. TEP had longer operative time (MD = 8.22 min, 95%CI[1.00,15.44]), but this gap disappeared in post-2013 studies. Subgroup analysis found that the lower infection risk of TEP was only significant when compared with Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.08, 0.96]).Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results, and no publication bias was detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TEP and Lichtenstein repair are comparably safe and effective for inguinal hernia repair. TEP may reduce postoperative pain and wound infections, whereas Lichtenstein repair with local anesthesia is suitable for high-risk cardiopulmonary patients. Surgical choice depends on patient, anesthesia, and expertise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hernia\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hernia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03424-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hernia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03424-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本meta分析比较了全腹膜外腹腔镜(TEP)修补术与局部或全身麻醉下开放式利希滕斯坦修复术对单侧腹股沟疝的影响,探讨手术或麻醉方式对术后安全性、疼痛和功能恢复的影响。方法:检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、Web of Science至2025年4月1日。包括4302例患者的18项随机观察性研究符合预定义的纳入标准。使用固定或随机效应模型计算合并风险比(RR)或95%置信区间(CI)的平均差异(MD);评估异质性、敏感性分析和发表偏倚。结果:TEP与Lichtenstein复发差异无统计学意义(RR = 0.85, 95% CI[0.51, 1.40])。TEP显著降低了早期疼痛(RR = 0.62, 95% CI[0.49, 0.79])、伤口感染(RR = 0.54, 95% CI[0.32, 0.91])和加速恢复正常活动(MD = -4.44, 95% CI[-6.06, -2.85])。血肿、血肿和住院时间相似。TEP的手术时间较长(MD = 8.22 min, 95%CI[1.00,15.44]),但在2013年后的研究中这一差距消失。亚组分析发现,与局麻下利希滕斯坦修复术相比,TEP感染风险较低(RR = 0.28, 95% CI[0.08, 0.96])。敏感性分析证实了结果的稳健性,未发现发表偏倚。结论:TEP与Lichtenstein修补术用于腹股沟疝修补术安全有效。TEP可减轻术后疼痛和伤口感染,而局部麻醉下的利希滕斯坦修复术适用于高危心肺患者。手术的选择取决于病人、麻醉和专业知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of totally extraperitoneal versus Lichtenstein operation under local or general anesthesia for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis.

Purpose: This meta-analysis compared totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic repair with open Lichtenstein repair performed under local or general anaesthesia for unilateral inguinal hernia, asking whether the surgical or anaesthetic approach affects postoperative safety, pain and functional recovery.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched to 1 April 2025. Eighteen randomized and observational studies comprising 4302 patients met predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed or randomeffects models; heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses and publication bias were assessed.​.

Results: No significant recurrence difference between TEP and Lichtenstein (RR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.51, 1.40]). TEP significantly reduced early-Stage Pain (RR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.49, 0.79]), wound infection (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.91]) and accelerated return to normal activities (MD = -4.44, 95% CI [-6.06, -2.85]). Hematoma, seroma and hospital stay were similar. TEP had longer operative time (MD = 8.22 min, 95%CI[1.00,15.44]), but this gap disappeared in post-2013 studies. Subgroup analysis found that the lower infection risk of TEP was only significant when compared with Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.08, 0.96]).Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results, and no publication bias was detected.

Conclusion: TEP and Lichtenstein repair are comparably safe and effective for inguinal hernia repair. TEP may reduce postoperative pain and wound infections, whereas Lichtenstein repair with local anesthesia is suitable for high-risk cardiopulmonary patients. Surgical choice depends on patient, anesthesia, and expertise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hernia
Hernia SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
26.10%
发文量
171
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Hernia was founded in 1997 by Jean P. Chevrel with the purpose of promoting clinical studies and basic research as they apply to groin hernias and the abdominal wall . Since that time, a true revolution in the field of hernia studies has transformed the field from a ”simple” disease to one that is very specialized. While the majority of surgeries for primary inguinal and abdominal wall hernia are performed in hospitals worldwide, complex situations such as multi recurrences, complications, abdominal wall reconstructions and others are being studied and treated in specialist centers. As a result, major institutions and societies are creating specific parameters and criteria to better address the complexities of hernia surgery. Hernia is a journal written by surgeons who have made abdominal wall surgery their specific field of interest, but we will consider publishing content from any surgeon who wishes to improve the science of this field. The Journal aims to ensure that hernia surgery is safer and easier for surgeons as well as patients, and provides a forum to all surgeons in the exchange of new ideas, results, and important research that is the basis of professional activity.
×
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