Laparoscopic versus open incisional and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is an alternative approach to conventional open incisional and ventral hernia repair (OIVHR). A consensus on outcomes of LIVHR when compared with OIVHR has not been reached.

Methods: As the basis for the present study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing LIVHR and OIVHR.

Results: Eleven studies involving 1,003 patients were enrolled. The incidences of wound infection were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than that in the open group (laparoscopic group 2.8 %, open group 16.2 %; RR = 0.19, 95 % CI 0.11-0.32; P < 0.00001). The rates of wound drainage were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than that in the open group (laparoscopic group 2.6 %, open group 67.0 %; RR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.03-0.09; P < 0.00001). However, the rates of bowel injury were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (laparoscopic group 4.3 %, open group 0.81 %; RR = 3.68, 95 % CI 1.56-8.67; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of hernia recurrence, postoperative seroma, hematoma, bowel obstruction, bleeding, and reoperation. Descriptive analyses showed a shorter length of hospital stay in the laparoscopic group.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair is a feasible and effective alternative to the open technique. It is associated with lower incidences of wound infection and shorter length of hospital stay. However, caution is required because it is associated with an increased risk of bowel injury compared with the open technique. Given the relatively short follow-up duration of trials included in the systematic review, trials with long-term follow-up are needed to compare the durability of laparoscopic and open repair.