TY - JOUR
T1 - Laparoscopic compared with open methods of groin hernia repair
T2 - Systematic review of randomized controlled trials
AU - EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration
AU - Grant, Adrian
AU - Go, Peter
AU - Fingerhut, Abe
AU - Kingsnorth, Andrew
AU - Merello, Jesus
AU - O'Dwyer, Paddy
AU - Payne, John
AU - Scott, Neil
AU - Webb, Kirsty
AU - Ross, Sue
AU - Go, Peter
AU - Aitola, Petri
AU - Anderberg, Bo
AU - Arvidsson, Dag
AU - Barkun, Jeffrey
AU - Bay-Nielsen, Morten
AU - Beets, Geerard
AU - Bittner, Reinhard
AU - Bringman, Sven
AU - Castoro, Carlo
AU - Champault, Gerard
AU - Dirksen, Carmen
AU - Filipi, Charles
AU - Fitzgibbons, Robert
AU - Girao, Ricardo
AU - Hatzitheoklitos, Efthimios
AU - Haulers, Philippe
AU - Heikkinen, Timo
AU - Jeekel, Hans
AU - Johansson, Bo
AU - Kald, Anders
AU - Kehlet, Henrik
AU - Khoury, Najib
AU - Klingler, Anton
AU - Kozol, Robert
AU - Leibl, B.
AU - MacIntyre, Ian
AU - McGillicuddy, James
AU - Maddern, Guy
AU - Millat, Bertrand
AU - Nilsson, Erik
AU - Nordin, Par
AU - Paganini, Alessandro
AU - Pappalardo, Giuseppe
AU - Pedros, Joan Sala
AU - Schmitz, R.
AU - Schwarz, Andreas
AU - Shah, Siegfried
AU - Simmermacher, Robert
AU - Sledzinski, Zbigniew
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - Background: The place of laparoscopic groin hernia repair remains controversial. Individual randomized controlled trials alone have not provided statistically reliable results when considering recurrence, potentially serious complications and chronic pain. Methods: A rigorous systematic review was performed of published data from all relevant randomized or quasi-randomized trials. Electronic databases were searched and members of the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration consulted to identify trials. Prespecified data items were extracted from reports and, where possible, quantitative meta-analysis was performed. Results: Thirty-four published reports of eligible trials were included, involving 6804 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 20 to 1051, with follow-up from 6 weeks to 36 months. Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopic groups (P < 0.001, Sign test). Operative complications were uncommon for both methods, but visceral and vascular injuries were more frequent in the laparoscopic group (4.7 per 1000 versus 1.1 per 1000). Postoperative pain was less among laparoscopic groups (P = 0.08). Length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.50), but return to usual activity was earlier for laparoscopic groups (P < 0.001). Chronic pain and numbness were reported for only a small minority of trials. Overall, recurrences did not differ between groups, but comparison of laparoscopic with open non-mesh repair favoured laparoscopic methods, significantly so for transabdominal preperitoneal repair (Peto odds ratio 0.56 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.33-0.93); P = 0.026). Conclusion: Although the rigorous search maximized trial identification, variation in trial reporting made formal meta-analysis difficult. Laparoscopic repair was associated with less postoperative pain and more rapid return to normal activities, but it takes longer to perform and may increase the risk of rare, but serious, complications.
AB - Background: The place of laparoscopic groin hernia repair remains controversial. Individual randomized controlled trials alone have not provided statistically reliable results when considering recurrence, potentially serious complications and chronic pain. Methods: A rigorous systematic review was performed of published data from all relevant randomized or quasi-randomized trials. Electronic databases were searched and members of the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration consulted to identify trials. Prespecified data items were extracted from reports and, where possible, quantitative meta-analysis was performed. Results: Thirty-four published reports of eligible trials were included, involving 6804 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 20 to 1051, with follow-up from 6 weeks to 36 months. Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopic groups (P < 0.001, Sign test). Operative complications were uncommon for both methods, but visceral and vascular injuries were more frequent in the laparoscopic group (4.7 per 1000 versus 1.1 per 1000). Postoperative pain was less among laparoscopic groups (P = 0.08). Length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.50), but return to usual activity was earlier for laparoscopic groups (P < 0.001). Chronic pain and numbness were reported for only a small minority of trials. Overall, recurrences did not differ between groups, but comparison of laparoscopic with open non-mesh repair favoured laparoscopic methods, significantly so for transabdominal preperitoneal repair (Peto odds ratio 0.56 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.33-0.93); P = 0.026). Conclusion: Although the rigorous search maximized trial identification, variation in trial reporting made formal meta-analysis difficult. Laparoscopic repair was associated with less postoperative pain and more rapid return to normal activities, but it takes longer to perform and may increase the risk of rare, but serious, complications.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033916168&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033916168&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01540.x
DO - 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01540.x
M3 - Review article
C2 - 10931019
AN - SCOPUS:0033916168
VL - 87
SP - 860
EP - 867
JO - Netherlands Journal of Surgery
JF - Netherlands Journal of Surgery
SN - 0007-1323
IS - 7
ER -