Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic vs conventional inguinal hernia repairs

Abstract

Background: Despite randomized controlled trials, the merits of laparoscopic hernia repair remain poorly defined. A meta-analysis may provide a timely overview.

Methods: An electronic MEDLINE search, supplemented by a manual search, yielded 14 randomized controlled trials with usable statistical data, involving 2,471 patients. The trials were grouped for separate meta-analyses according to the control operation, either a tension-free or sutured repair, used for comparison. The effect sizes for operating time, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, and early recurrence were calculated, using a random-effects model when the effect sizes were heterogeneous and without subcategories.

Results: In all meta-analyses, the laparoscopic operation was significantly longer. When compared with tension-free repairs, the laparoscopic operation showed no advantage in terms of postoperative pain, but resulted in a shorter recovery (marginal significance). As compared with sutured repair, both postoperative pain and recovery were in favor of the laparoscopic operation. When all 14 trials were analyzed together, laparoscopic repairs still had moderately reduced postoperative pain and recovery time.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic hernia repair has a modest advantage over conventional repairs. This advantage is more apparent when laparoscopic repairs are compared with sutured repairs rather than tension-free repairs.