Quantitative assessment of the impacts of stoppa repair and total extraperitoneal repair on the lower extremity muscular functions in cases of unilateral inguinal hernia: a randomized controlled study

Sexual dysfunction between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Sexual dysfunction after inguinal hernia complication is considered rare. However, its consequences impact on quality of life inevitably. Laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair may be comparable in terms of recurrent rate, overall complications, and chronic pain. Therefore, its complication is still questionable between these approaches. In this study, we compared sexual dysfunction and related complications between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies were performed to compare laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULT

Thirty RCTs (12,022 patients) were included. Overall, 6014 (50.02%) underwent laparoscopic hernia repair, and 6008 (49.98%) underwent open hernia repair. Laparoscopic approach provided non-significance benefit on pain during sexual activity (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.18, 1.76), Vas deferens injury (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.13, 1.63), orchitis (RR 0.84; CI 0.61,1.17), scrotal hematoma (RR 0.99; CI 0.62,1.60), and testicular atrophy (RR 0.46; CI 0.17,1.20). Meanwhile, the open inguinal hernia approach seems to perform better for cord seroma complications and testicular pain.

CONCLUSION

There is no advantage of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair over an open approach concerning sexual dysfunction. On the contrary, there is an increasing risk of cord seroma after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with statistical significance.

Meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Inguinal hernia repair is a common low-risk intervention. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being used increasingly as primary outcomes in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to review and meta-analyse the PROs in RCTs comparing laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair techniques in adult patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Only RCTs in peer-reviewed journals were considered. PubMed, Ovid Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched. In addition, four trial registries were searched. The search interval was between 1 January 1998 and 1 May 2018. Identified publications were reviewed independently by two authors. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018099552). Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Some 7192 records were identified, from which 58 unique RCTs were selected. Laparoscopic hernia repair was associated with significantly less postoperative pain in three intervals: from 2 weeks to within 6 months after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·62 to 0·88), 6 months to 1 year (RR 0·74, 0·59 to 0·93) and 1 year onwards (RR 0·62, 0·47 to 0·82). Paraesthesia (RR 0·27, 0·18 to 0·40) and patient-reported satisfaction (RR 0·91, 0·85 to 0·98) were also significantly better in the laparoscopic repair group.

CONCLUSION

The data and analysis reported in this study reflect the most up-to-date evidence available for the surgeon to counsel patients. It was constrained by heterogeneity of reporting for several outcomes.