Laparoscopic versus open groin hernia repair in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic vs. Open-Groin Hernia Repair in Romania-A Populational Study

Background/Objectives: Groin hernia repair is a common surgical procedure worldwide, with increasing adoption of minimally invasive techniques. However, the adoption of laparoscopic repair varies significantly across healthcare systems. This study aims to analyze trends in laparoscopic versus open-groin hernia repair in Romania over a five-year period (2019-2023), assessing differences in hospital types, reimbursement policies, and patient outcomes. Methods: This nationwide retrospective study examined 76,553 groin hernia repairs from the National Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) database, including 231 public and 41 private hospitals. Patients were categorized as laparoscopic (13,282 cases) or open repair (63,271 cases). Statistical analysis included logistic regression and non-parametric tests to assess factors influencing surgical approach selection, hospitalization duration, and case complexity. Results: Laparoscopic repair accounted for 17.3% of all groin hernia procedures, with higher adoption in private hospitals (54.7%) than in public hospitals (14.6%). Laparoscopic procedures increased from 14.1% in 2019 to 20% in 2023. Hospitalization was shorter in private hospitals (1.78 vs. 4.80 days in public hospitals). Reimbursement rates showed minimal differentiation between laparoscopic and open repair, suggesting no financial incentive for minimally invasive surgery in public hospitals. Conclusions: Despite a steady increase in laparoscopic hernia repair, its adoption in Romania remains limited compared to Western Europe. Private hospitals lead in minimally invasive surgery, while public hospitals predominantly rely on open repair due to reimbursement policies and resource constraints. Adjusting DRG-based reimbursement, expanding training, and implementing a national hernia registry could improve outcomes and access to minimally invasive surgery.

Surgical training trends in the Americas: A cross-continental assessment of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery among surgical trainees

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become standard of care in many high-income countries, but its adoption in low- and middle-income countries (LICs/MICs) has been impeded by resource- and training-related barriers. We hypothesized that trainees in MICs perform MIS procedures less often, and that as procedure complexity increases, the rate of MIS decreases.

METHODS

A 22-question survey, distributed to representative leaders across Latin America, collected country-specific graduating trainee case requirements and volumes for four index procedures (cholecystectomy, appendectomy, inguinal hernia repair, colectomy) using MIS or open surgery (OS). USA data was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine whether the rate of MIS differed across all countries, procedure complexity classes, and high income countries (HICs)/MICs.

RESULTS

Seven experts (70% response rate) completed the survey, representing: Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay. The percentage of MIS completed by trainees varied with mean and interquartile ranges as follows: cholecystectomy (60% ± 54%), appendectomy (41% ± 69%), inguinal hernia repair (19% ± 23%), colectomy (16% ± 29%). There was a significant difference in mean MIS experience across the eight countries (H = 17.6, p = 0.014) and between most complex and least complex procedures (p = 0.039). No difference was found between MICs and HICs (p = 0.786).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significant difference of general surgery trainee exposure to MIS versus OS across the Americas, but the difference was not significantly associated with World Bank Income Groups. Different trainee experiences with MIS and OS may highlight an opportunity for international and bidirectional collaboration.

Transrectus Extraperitoneal Versus Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Recent guidelines have recommended minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for unilateral inguinal hernia due to reduced chronic pain. The most performed approaches consist of posterior mesh placement by the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques. However, it remains debatable whether the advantage of those techniques stems from the MIS approach or posterior mesh placement or both. As the transrectus preperitoneal (TREPP) technique is an open option for posterior mesh placement, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TREPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Material and Methods: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TREPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, cumulative surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and postoperative pain. Results: Twenty-nine studies were screened, and eight were thoroughly reviewed. Three studies were included, of which two compared TREPP with the TEP technique, and one compared TREPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower SSI rates for the MIS approaches (0.61% versus 0.33%; risk ratios (RRs) 3.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-15.16; P = .04). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding recurrence (2.42% versus 2.51%; RR 1.01; P = .98), postoperative pain (4.2% versus 6.4%; RR 0.61; P = .4), and SSO (4.2% versus 4.0%; RR 0.6; P = .43) between TREPP and MIS techniques. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found a lower SSI for the MIS repair but did not find differences regarding recurrence, SSO, and postoperative pain. More studies are required to provide a more accurate conclusion about this topic.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open inguinal-hernia repair in elderly patients: the experience of two comprehensive medical centers over 10 years

PURPOSE

The safety of laparoscopic inguinal-hernia repair must be carefully evaluated in elderly patients. Very little is known regarding the safety of the laparoscopic approach in elderly patients under surgical and medical co-management (SMC). Therefore, this study evaluated the safety of the laparoscopic approach in elderly patients, especially patients with multiple comorbidities under SMC.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2021, patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent open or laparoscopic inguinal-hernia repair during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled. Postoperative outcomes included major and minor operation-related complications, and other adverse events. To reduce potential selection bias, propensity score matching was performed between open and laparoscopic groups based on patients' demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 447 elderly patients who underwent inguinal-hernia repair were enrolled, with 408 (91.3%) underwent open and 39 (8.7%) laparoscopic surgery. All postoperative outcomes were comparable between open and laparoscopic groups after 1:1 propensity score matching (all p > 0.05). Moreover, compared to the traditional care group (n = 360), a higher proportion of the SMC group (n = 87) was treated via the laparoscopic approach (18.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.00). In the laparoscopic approach subgroup (n = 39), patients in the SMC group (n = 16) were older with multiple comorbidities but were at higher risks of only minor operation-related complications, compared to those in the traditional care group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic inguinal-hernia repair surgery is safe for elderly patients, especially those with multiple comorbidities under SMC.

Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) versus minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique is an open approach to groin hernia repair with posteriorly positioned mesh supposed to reduce recurrence rates. However, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques have similar mesh positioning with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TIPP and MIS for groin hernia repair.

SOURCE

Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TIPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, chronic pain, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, and hematoma. We performed a subgroup analysis of TAPP and TEP techniques separately. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

81 studies were screened and 19 were thoroughly reviewed. Six studies were included, of which two compared TIPP with TEP technique, two compared TIPP with TAPP, and two compared TIPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower recurrence rates for the TEP technique compared to TIPP (0.38% versus 1.19%; RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.11; P = 0.04). Also, we found lower seroma rates for TIPP group on the overall analysis (RR 0.21; P = 0.002). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding overall recurrence (RR 1.6; P = 0.19), chronic pain (RR 1.53; P = 0.2), SSI (RR 2.51; P = 0.47), and hematoma (RR 1.29; P = 0.76) between MIS and TIPP. No statistically significant differences were found in the subgroup analysis of TAPP technique for all the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review and meta-analysis found no differences between TIPP and MIS approaches in the overall analysis of recurrence, SSI, and chronic pain rates. Further research is needed to analyze individual techniques and draw a more precise conclusion on this subject.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

ID CRD42024530107, April 8, 2024.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia

BACKGROUND

Inguinal hernia is a common global disease. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal repair (RTAPP) and laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (LTAPP) for inguinal hernia.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search in Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed for relevant clinical studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the quality of selected studies was assessed using the Jadad scale for randomized controlled studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies were included, comprising two randomized controlled studies and eight non-randomized controlled studies. Meta-analysis results revealed no statistically significant differences between the RTAPP group and the LTAPP group regarding hospital stay [MD = 0.21 days, 95% CI (-0.09, 0.51), P = 0.17], incidence of seroma [OR = 0.85, 95% CI(0.45, 1.59), P = 0.61], overall complication rate [OR = 1.22, 95% CI(0.68, 2.18), P = 0.51], readmission rate [OR = 1.31, 95% CI(0.23, 7.47), P = 0.76], and recurrence rate [OR = 0.82, 95% CI(0.22, 3.07), P = 0.77]. However, the RTAPP group had longer operation time compared to the LTAPP group [MD = 14.02 minutes, 95% CI (6.65, 21.39), P = 0.0002], and the cost of the RTAPP procedure was higher than that of the LTAPP procedure [MD = $4.17 thousand, 95% CI (2.59, 5.76), P<0.00001].

CONCLUSION

RTAPP for inguinal hernia is a safe and feasible approach, however, it is associated with increased operation time and treatment costs.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hernia sac management in laparoscopic groin hernia mesh repair: reduction or transection?

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding hernia sac management during laparoscopic hernia repair, and this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of sac reduction (RS) and sac transection (TS) during laparoscopic mesh hernia repair.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. We used the RevMan 5.4 statistical package from the Cochrane collaboration for meta-analysis. A random effects model was used.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded six eligible studies including 2941 patients: 821 patients in the TS group and 2120 patients in the RS group. In the pooled analysis, the TS group was associated with a lower incidence of seroma (OR = 1.71; 95% CI [1.22, 2.39], p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stay (MD = -0.07; 95% CI [-0.12, -0.02], p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of morbidity (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.34, 2.19], p = 0.76), operative time (MD = -4.39; 95% CI [-13.62, 4.84], p = 0.35), recurrence (OR = 2.70; 95% CI [0.50, 14.50], p = 0.25), and Postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that hernia sac transection is associated with a lower seroma rate and shorter hospital stay with similar morbidity, operative time, recurrence, and postoperative pain compared to the reduction of the hernia sac.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID CRD42023391730.

Laparoscopic versus Open Inguinal Hernia Repair in Aging Patients: A Propensity Score Matching-Based Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Although laparoscopic repair has been widely carried out and promoted due to its minimally invasive advantages, open surgery is still popular compared to elderly patients. This study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LIHR) vs open repair of inguinal hernias (OIHR) in elderly patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the database was performed to identify elderly patients, from January 2021 through December 2022, who underwent surgery for an inguinal hernia. After a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) with a caliper of 0.1 was conducted to balance potential bias, binary logistic regressions were used for categorical and continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM, 78 pairs of elderly patients were enrolled in this study, and there were no significant differences in baseline between LIHR and OIHR groups. Compared to OIHR, univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that LIHR was independently affected for reducing intraoperative hemorrhage (OR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02-0.18, P < 0.001) and shortening postoperative hospitalization time (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15-0.57, P < 0.001) in elderly patients. Furthermore, LIHR (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.57, P < 0.001) and age (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.96, P = 0.002) were independent affecting factors for relieving postoperative pain. Meanwhile, no obvious differences were detected in postoperative complications [LIHR 7.7% (6/78) vs OIHR 14.1% (11/78), P = 0.199].

CONCLUSION

LIHR was closely associated with reducing intraoperative hemorrhage and shortening postoperative hospitalization time. Whilst LIHR and age were independently affecting factors for relieving postoperative pain.