腹腔镜辅助腹膜外疝囊高位结扎术与传统手术治疗学龄前儿童腹股沟斜疝的临床对比

Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair Versus Open Repair in Boys with Inguinal Hernia: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric inguinal hernia is a common surgical problem in boys. Open hernia repair surgery (OH) has been traditionally used to treat this condition, but it leads to complications, such as testicular complications. Laparoscopic hernia repair by using the extraperitoneal method (LHE) is performed through the percutaneous insertion of sutures and extracorporeal closure of patent vaginalis processus; thus, injury to spermatic cord structures is avoided. However, a meta-analysis comparing LHE and OH is lacking.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis of the retrieved studies was performed, and a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect size. The primary outcome was testicular complications, including ascending testis, hydrocele, and testicular atrophy. The secondary outcomes were surgical metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH), ipsilateral hernia recurrence, and operation time.

RESULTS

In total, 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 20 non-RCTs involving 17,555 boys were included. The incidence of ascending testis (risk ratio [RR]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.78; p = 0.008) and MCIH (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.43; p = 0.0002) was significantly lower in LHE than in OH. The incidence of hydrocele, testicular atrophy, and ipsilateral hernia recurrence did not differ between LHE and OH.

CONCLUSION

Compared with OH, LHE led to fewer or equivalent testicular complications without increasing ipsilateral hernia recurrence. Moreover, MCIH incidence was lower in LHE than in OH. Hence, LHE could be a feasible choice with less invasiveness for inguinal hernia repair in boys.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Treatment study, LEVEL III.

Surgical Management of Pediatric Inguinal Hernia: A Systematic Review and Guideline from the European Pediatric Surgeons' Association Evidence and Guideline Committee

INTRODUCTION

 Inguinal hernia repair represents the most common operation in childhood; however, consensus about the optimal management is lacking. Hence, recommendations for clinical practice are needed. This study assesses the available evidence and compiles recommendations on pediatric inguinal hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 The European Pediatric Surgeons' Association Evidence and Guideline Committee addressed six questions on pediatric inguinal hernia repair with the following topics: (1) open versus laparoscopic repair, (2) extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal repair, (3) contralateral exploration, (4) surgical timing, (5) anesthesia technique in preterm infants, and (6) operation urgency in girls with irreducible ovarian hernia. Systematic literature searches were performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library. Reviews and meta-analyses were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

 Seventy-two out of 5,173 articles were included, 27 in the meta-analyses. Laparoscopic repair shortens bilateral operation time compared with open repair. In preterm infants, hernia repair after neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)/hospital discharge is associated with less respiratory difficulties and recurrences, regional anesthesia is associated with a decrease of postoperative apnea and pain. The review regarding operation urgency for irreducible ovarian hernia gained insufficient evidence of low quality.

CONCLUSION

 Laparoscopic repair may be beneficial for children with bilateral hernia and preterm infants may benefit using regional anesthesia and postponing surgery. However, no definite superiority was found and available evidence was of moderate-to-low quality. Evidence for other topics was less conclusive. For the optimal management of inguinal hernia repair, a tailored approach is recommended taking into account the local facilities, resources, and expertise of the medical team involved.

Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair in children: A systematic review

Purpose

Considerable debates exist regarding the preferable technique to repair a paediatric inguinal hernia (PIH). This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic herniorrhaphy (LH) and open herniorrhaphy (OH) in PIH.

Methods

The randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the outcomes of LH and OH in PIH without region and language restrictions searched from the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science Database, Cochrane Library, SciELO Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and China Science and Technology Journal Database.

Results

A total of 13 RCTs that involving 1207 patients included in the review. The LH displayed a shorter operative time for bilateral hernia repair (weighted mean difference = -8.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -11.22~-5.23, P < 0.00001), a lower complication rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 013-0.83, P = 0.02) along with a lower wound infection (OR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55, P = 0.005) and major male-specific post-operative complications (OR = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.04-0.24, P < 0.00001) and a less contralateral metachronous inguinal hernia (CMIH) incidence rate (OR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.42, P = 0.002). No significant difference was found for unilateral operative time, time to full recovery, length of hospital stay, recurrence and hydrocele rates between the two techniques.

Conclusion

The present review reiterates that both the LH and OH techniques for the PIH repair are comparable. However, in some aspects, the LH is superior to the OH in terms of operative time for bilateral hernias, post-operative complications rate and CMIH incidence rate. Rigorously designed RCTs are anticipated to confirm the clinical effects of both LH and OH.

Laparoscopic Hernia Repair with the Extraperitoneal Approach versus Open Hernia Repair in Pediatric Inguinal Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic hernia repair with the extraperitoneal approach in pediatric inguinal hernias.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Inguinal hernia repair is the most common operation in pediatric surgical practice. Although open hernia repair (OHR) is a well-established procedure with good outcomes, studies have reported acceptable or even better outcomes of laparoscopic hernia repair with the extraperitoneal approach (LHRE). However, a meta-analysis comparing LHRE with OHR is lacking.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies (prospective or retrospective). Outcomes were metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH), hernia recurrence, surgical site infection, operation time, and hospitalization length. A meta-analysis was performed, and risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Five RCTs and 21 comparative studies involving 24,479 patients were included. Lower MCIH incidence (RR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.17; p < 0.00001) and a trend of shorter operation time (WMD: -11.90 min, 95% CI: -16.63 to -7.44; p < 0.00001) were found in the LHRE group. No significant differences in ipsilateral recurrence hernias, surgical site infection, and length of hospitalization were found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LHRE presented lower MCIH incidence and shorter operation times, with no increase in hernia recurrence, surgical site infection, or length of hospitalization. As more surgeons are increasingly becoming familiar with LHRE, LHRE would be a feasible and effective choice for pediatric inguinal hernia repair.

Laparoscopic versus open pediatric inguinal hernia repair: state-of-the-art comparison and future perspectives from a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children is increasingly performed as it allows contralateral inspection and potentially results in shorter operation time and less complications. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the superiority of laparoscopic versus open hernia repair is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed querying PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases. RCTs comparing laparoscopic with open hernia repair in children were considered eligible, without year and language restrictions. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the laparoscopic suturing technique (i.e., intracorporeal or extracorporeal).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (n = 733 patients; age range 4 months-16 years) were included in this meta-analysis. Laparoscopic (LH) and open (OH) hernia repair was performed in 375 and 358 patients, respectively. Complications (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.79), recurrences (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.88), and MCIH rates (four RCTs, n = 343; pooled OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.86) were not different between the groups. LH resulted in shorter bilateral operation time (Five RCTs, n = 194; weighted mean difference (WMD) - 7.19, 95% CI - 10.04 to - 4.34). Unilateral operation time, length of hospital stay, and time to recovery were similar. There was insufficient evidence to assess postoperative pain and wound cosmesis, and evidence of substantial heterogeneity between the included studies. Subgroup analyses demonstrated less complications and shorter unilateral operation time for extracorporeal suturing and shorter length of hospital stay for intracorporeal suturing.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No definite conclusions to decide on the superiority of one of either treatment strategies can yet be drawn from the available literature. There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity and the clinical relevance of most estimated effects is very limited.