Chi-Wen Lo1, Stephen Shei-Dei Yang1,2, Yao-Chou Tsai1,2, Cheng-Hsing Hsieh1,2, Shang-Jen Chang3,4. 1. Division of Urology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 2. School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan. 3. Division of Urology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan. krissygnet@gmail.com. 4. School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan. krissygnet@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We systemically reviewed published literatures and performed meta-analysis to compare the surgical outcomes between laparoendoscopic single-site over the multiple-port total extraperitoneal approach in hernia repair. METHODS: We did a systemic search of PubMed and Cochrane review for all randomized controlled trials and comparative trials that compared the efficacy and safety between LESS-TEP and MP-TEP. The evaluated outcomes included perioperative parameters (operative time, conversion rate), hospital stay and complications (seroma, delayed return of bladder function, postoperative pain and recurrence). The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.2.6) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There were 10 trials met the inclusion criteria and included for meta-analysis. Totally, there were 595 and 514 patients underwent LESS-TEP and MP-TEP, respectively. The LESS-TEP took significantly longer-operative time than the MP-TEP in unilateral hernia repair (weighted mean difference (WMD) 4.11 min, 95% CI 0.76-7.46, p = 0.02) while not in bilateral hernia repair (WMD 3.87 min, 95% of CI -2.59-10.33, z = 1.17, p = 0.24). There were no significant differences in surgical outcomes with regard to postoperative pain scale, conversion rate, hospital stay, recurrence rate and complication rate between two groups. The length of the sub-umbilical wound was the same in both groups. The result of cosmesis was not compared because of the limited data. CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, LESS-TEP is a feasible alternative to MP-TEP with comparable surgical efficacy and morbidity, but with longer operation time in unilateral hernia repair. Potential advantages of LESS-TEP including better cosmesis, less postoperative pain and less trocar-associated complications were not clearly shown.
PURPOSE: We systemically reviewed published literatures and performed meta-analysis to compare the surgical outcomes between laparoendoscopic single-site over the multiple-port total extraperitoneal approach in hernia repair. METHODS: We did a systemic search of PubMed and Cochrane review for all randomized controlled trials and comparative trials that compared the efficacy and safety between LESS-TEP and MP-TEP. The evaluated outcomes included perioperative parameters (operative time, conversion rate), hospital stay and complications (seroma, delayed return of bladder function, postoperative pain and recurrence). The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.2.6) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There were 10 trials met the inclusion criteria and included for meta-analysis. Totally, there were 595 and 514 patients underwent LESS-TEP and MP-TEP, respectively. The LESS-TEP took significantly longer-operative time than the MP-TEP in unilateral hernia repair (weighted mean difference (WMD) 4.11 min, 95% CI 0.76-7.46, p = 0.02) while not in bilateral hernia repair (WMD 3.87 min, 95% of CI -2.59-10.33, z = 1.17, p = 0.24). There were no significant differences in surgical outcomes with regard to postoperative pain scale, conversion rate, hospital stay, recurrence rate and complication rate between two groups. The length of the sub-umbilical wound was the same in both groups. The result of cosmesis was not compared because of the limited data. CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, LESS-TEP is a feasible alternative to MP-TEP with comparable surgical efficacy and morbidity, but with longer operation time in unilateral hernia repair. Potential advantages of LESS-TEP including better cosmesis, lesspostoperative pain and less trocar-associated complications were not clearly shown.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endoscopy; Hernia; Laparoscopy; Meta-analysis; Single-site surgery
Authors: R Bittner; M E Arregui; T Bisgaard; M Dudai; G S Ferzli; R J Fitzgibbons; R H Fortelny; U Klinge; F Kockerling; E Kuhry; J Kukleta; D Lomanto; M C Misra; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; W Reinpold; J Rosenberg; S Sauerland; C Schug-Pass; K Singh; M Timoney; D Weyhe; P Chowbey Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Arnold P Advincula; Monish Aron; Jeffrey Caddedu; David Canes; Paul G Curcillo; Mihir M Desai; John C Evanko; Tomasso Falcone; Victor Fazio; Matthew Gettman; Andrew A Gumbs; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk; Fernando Kim; Stephanie A King; Jeffrey Ponsky; Feza Remzi; Homero Rivas; Alexander Rosemurgy; Sharona Ross; Philip Schauer; Rene Sotelo; Jose Speranza; John Sweeney; Julio Teixeira Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Bay-Nielsen; H Kehlet; L Strand; J Malmstrøm; F H Andersen; P Wara; P Juul; T Callesen Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Samuel K Park; Ephrem O Olweny; Sara L Best; Chad R Tracy; Saad A Mir; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jacek T Białecki; Waldemar Myszka; Ewa Wysocka; Sebastian Sowier; Przemysław Pyda; Ryszard Antkowiak; Łukasz Antkowiak; Anna Sowier; Zbigniew Krasiński Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Ji Hyun Lee; Sang Hyun Cho; Kyung Jin Eoh; Jung-Yun Lee; Eun Ji Nam; Sunghoon Kim; Sang Wun Kim; Young Tae Kim Journal: Obstet Gynecol Sci Date: 2020-03-19