Elective incisional hernia repair: lower risk of postoperative wound infection with laparoscopic versus open repair

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.

Single-incision compared with conventional laparoscopy for appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis of the relevant literature evaluated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) relative to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS

The major biomedical databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched up to January 2022 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SILA and CLA were compared regarding patient body mass index, operative time, and perioperative complications. The Cochrane Handbook and RevMan 5.3 were used to judge trial quality and perform the meta-analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

The 17 included RCTs comprised 2068 patients, of whom 1039 and 1029 patients underwent SILA and CLA, respectively. The operative time for SILA was longer than that for CLA (MD = 8.35 min, 95% CI = 6.58 to 10.11, P < 0.00001), but the cosmetic results from SILA were superior (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.03, P < 0.00001). However, the incidence rates were similar in terms of patient body mass index; postoperative pain scores; and rates of abdominal abscess, conversion to open surgery, ileus, surgical site infection, and overall perioperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a safe technique for acute appendicitis, and its cosmetic outcomes are superior to those of CLA.