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

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1089/lap.2024.0203
Ana Caroline Dias Rasador, Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, Diego Laurentino Lima, João P G Kasakewitch, Raquel Nogueira, Prashanth Sreeramoju, Flavio Malcher
{"title":"Transrectus Extraperitoneal Versus Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ana Caroline Dias Rasador, Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, Diego Laurentino Lima, João P G Kasakewitch, Raquel Nogueira, Prashanth Sreeramoju, Flavio Malcher","doi":"10.1089/lap.2024.0203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Purpose:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 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; <i>P</i> = .04). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding recurrence (2.42% versus 2.51%; RR 1.01; <i>P</i> = .98), postoperative pain (4.2% versus 6.4%; RR 0.61; <i>P</i> = .4), and SSO (4.2% versus 4.0%; RR 0.6; <i>P</i> = .43) between TREPP and MIS techniques. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"1014-1020"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2024.0203","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经腹膜外直肠与微创腹股沟疝修补术:系统回顾与元分析》。
目的:最近的指南建议采用微创手术(MIS)治疗单侧腹股沟疝,以减少慢性疼痛。最常用的方法是通过经腹腹膜前(TAPP)和完全腹膜外(TEP)技术在后方放置网片。然而,这些技术的优势究竟是来自于 MIS 方法还是后方网片置入,抑或是两者兼而有之,目前仍存在争议。由于经直肠腹膜前(TREPP)技术是后置网片的一种开放式选择,我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,比较了 TREPP 和 MIS 技术在腹股沟疝修补术中的优势。材料与方法:我们系统地检索了 Cochrane、Embase、Scopus、Scielo 和 PubMed 上比较 TREPP 和 MIS 腹股沟疝修补术的研究。评估的结果包括复发率、累计手术部位发生率(SSO)、手术部位感染(SSI)和术后疼痛。结果:共筛选出 29 项研究,对其中 8 项进行了全面审查。共纳入三项研究,其中两项比较了 TREPP 与 TEP 技术,一项比较了 TREPP 与 TEP 和 TAPP 技术。我们发现 MIS 方法的 SSI 感染率较低(0.61% 对 0.33%;风险比 (RR) 3.96;95% 置信区间 (CI):1.04-15.16;P = .04)。我们没有发现 TREPP 和 MIS 技术在复发(2.42% 对 2.51%;RR 1.01;P = .98)、术后疼痛(4.2% 对 6.4%;RR 0.61;P = .4)和 SSO(4.2% 对 4.0%;RR 0.6;P = .43)方面存在显著统计学差异。结论:我们的系统回顾和荟萃分析发现 MIS 修复术的 SSI 更低,但在复发、SSO 和术后疼痛方面没有发现差异。还需要更多的研究才能对此得出更准确的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
期刊最新文献
Application of Intraoperative Ultrasound in Laparoscopic Liver Resection with Pringle Maneuver: A Comparative Study with the Pringle Maneuver. Short-Term Efficacy of LCBDE+LC Versus ERCP/EST+LC in the Treatment of Cholelithiasis Combined with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Evaluation of Surgical Results and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal and Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Approaches in Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Analysis. Is Endoscopic Resection Essential for Patients with Type 1 Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumor? Is It Necessary to Endoscopically Evaluate the Anastomosis in Robotic or Laparoscopic Surgical Procedures for Colorectal Cancer?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1