Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia

  • Review
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Comment to this article was published on 04 August 2015

Abstract

Context

The utility of laparoscopic repair in the treatment of incisional hernia repair is still contentious.

Objectives

The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of RCTs investigating the surgical and postsurgical outcomes of elective incisional hernia by open versus laparoscopic method.

Data sources

A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1993 and September 2013 was performed using medical subject headings (MESH) “hernia,” “incisional,” “abdominal,” “randomized/randomised controlled trial,” “abdominal wall hernia,” “laparoscopic repair,” “open repair”, “human” and “English”.

Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions

Prospective RCTs comparing surgical treatment of only incisional hernia (and not primary ventral hernias) using open and laparoscopic methods were selected.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

Data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out independently by two authors (AA and MAM) using predefined data fields. The outcome variables analyzed included (a) hernia diameter; (b) operative time; (c) length of hospital stay; (d) overall complication rate; (e) bowel complications; (f) reoperation; (g) wound infection; (h) wound hematoma or seroma; (i) time to oral intake; (j) back to work; (k) recurrence rate; and (l) postoperative neuralgia. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important since they influence the practical and surgical approach towards hernia management within hospitals and institutions. The quality of RCTs was assessed using Jadad’s scoring system. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity amongst the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I 2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Sufficient data were available for the analysis of twelve clinically relevant outcomes. Statistically significant reduction in bowel complications was noted with open surgery compared to the laparoscopic repair in five studies (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.15, 5.72, p = 0.02). Comparable effects were noted for other variables which include hernia diameter (SMD −0.27, 95 % CI −0.77, 0.23, p = 0.29), operative time (SMD −0.08, 95 % CI −4.46, 4.30, p = 0.97), overall complications (OR −1.07, 95 % CI −0.33, 3.42, p = 0.91), wound infection (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.09, 2.67, p = 0.41), wound hematoma or seroma (OR 1.54, 95 % CI 0.58, 4.09, p = 0.38), reoperation rate (OR −0.32, 95 % CI 0.07, 1.43, p = 0.14), time to oral intake (SMD −0.16, 95 % CI −1.97, 2.28, p = 0.89), length of hospital stay (SMD −0.83, 95 % CI −2.22, 0.56, p = 0.24), back to work (SMD −3.14, 95 % CI −8.92, 2.64, p = 0.29), recurrence rate (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.81, 2.46, p = 0.23), and postoperative neuralgia (OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.16, 1.46, p = 0.20).

Conclusions

On the basis of our meta-analysis, we conclude that laparoscopic and open repair of incisional hernia is comparable. A larger randomized controlled multicenter trial with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and standardized techniques for both repairs is required to demonstrate the superiority of one technique over the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rutkow IM (2003) Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin North Am 5:1045–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Read RC, Yoder G (1989) Recent trends in the management of incisional herniation. Arch Surg 124:485–488

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsereteli Z, Pryor BA, Heniford BT, Park A, Voeller G, Ramshaw BJ (2008) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) in morbidly obese patients. Hernia 12:233–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–585

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. LeBlanc KA, Booth WV (1993) Laparoscopic repair of incisional abdominal hernias using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: preliminary findings. Laparosc Endosc 3:39–41

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. LeBlanc KA, Whitaker JM, Bellnager DE, Rhynes VK (2003) Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernioplasty: lessons learned from 200 patients. Hernia 7:118–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896–1900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P (2006) Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  11. Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F (2000) Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cochran WG (1954) The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometric 10:101–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta analysis. Academic Press, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J (2006) Assessing heterogeneity in meta analysis: Q statistic or I 2 index? Am Psychol Assoc 11:193–206

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range and size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tang JL, Liu JLY (2000) Misleading funnel plot detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidermiol 53:477–484

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Span J, Carière E, Croockewitt S, Smits P (2006) Publication bias, effects on the assessment of rosiglitasone. Br J Clin Pharmacol 62:732

    Google Scholar 

  21. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Computer Program]. Version 1. Vienna: R foundation for statistical computing, 2008

  22. Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. J Stat Softw. http://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php/metafor

  23. Olmi S, Scaini A, Cesana GC, Erba L, Croce E (2007) Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: an open randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc 21:555–559

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Navarra G, Musolino C, De Marco ML, Bartolotta M, Barbera A, Centorrino T (2007) Retromuscular sutured incisional hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial to compare open and laparoscopic approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:86–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Asencio F, Aguiló J, Peiró S, Carbó J, Ferri R, Caro F, Ahmad M (2009) Open randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair. Surg Endosc 23:1441–1448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Itani KM, Hur K, Kim LT, Anthony T, Berger DH, Reda D, Neumayer L (2010) Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 145:322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eker HH, Hansson BM, Buunen M, Janssen IM, Pierik RE, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2013) Laparoscopic vs. open incisional hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 13:259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogmark P, Petersson U, Bringman S, Eklund A, Ezra E, Sevonius D, Smedberg S, Osterberg J, Montgomery A (2013) Short-term outcomes for open and laparoscopic midline incisional hernia repair: a randomized multicenter controlled trial: the ProLOVE (prospective randomized trial on open versus laparoscopic operation of ventral eventrations) trial. Ann Surg 258:37–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barbaros U, Asogulu O, Seven R, Erbil Y, Dinccag A, Deveci U, Ozarmagan S, Mercan S (2006) The comparison of laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs : a prospective randomized study. Hernia 11:51–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Carbajo MA, Martín del Olmo JC, Blanco JI, de la Cuesta C, Toledano M, Martín F, Vaquero C, Inglada L (1999) Laparoscopic treatment vs open surgery in the solution of major incisional and abdominal wall hernias with mesh. Surg Endosc 13:250–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Itani KMF, Neumayer L, Reda D, Kim L, Anthony T (2004) Repair of ventral incisional hernia: the design of a randomized trial to compare open and laparoscopic surgical techniques. Am J Surg 188(6A Suppl):22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Misra MC, Bansal VK, Kulkarni MP, Pawar DK (2006) Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair of incisional and primary ventral hernia: results of a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 20:1839–1845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Moreno-Egea A, Carrasco L, Girela E, Martín JG, Aguayo JL, Canteras M (2002) Open vs laparoscopic repair of spigelian hernia: a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 137:1266–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pring CM, Tran V, O’Rourke N, Martin IJ (2008) Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. ANZ J Surg 78:903–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Poelman M, Apers J, van den Brand H, Cense H, Consten E, Deelder J (2013) The INCH-trial: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of conventional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for incisional hernia repair. BMC Surg 13:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ben-Haim M, Kuriansky J, Tal R, Zmora O, Mintz Y, Rosin D, Ayalon A, Shabtai M (2002) Pitfalls and complications with laparoscopic intraperitoneal expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch repair of postoperative ventral hernia. Surg Endosc 16:785–788

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bencini L, Sanchez LJ (2004) Learning curve for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg 187:378–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ujiki MB, Weinberger J, Varghese TK, Murayama KM, Joehl RJ (2004) One hundred consecutive laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs. Am J Surg 188:593–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Moreno-Egea A, Torralba JA, Girela E, Corral M, Bento M, Cartagena J, Vicente JP, Aguayo JL, Canteras M (2004) Immediate, early, and late morbidity with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and tolerance to composite mesh. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:130–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J, Walsh RM, Rosenblatt S, Duperier F, Fanning A, Siperstein A (2003) Recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 17:123–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Goodney PP, Birkmeyer CM, Birkmeyer JD (2002) Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 137:1161–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Forbes SS, Eskicioglu C, McLeod RS, Okrainec A (2009) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open and laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with mesh. Br J Surg 96:851–858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, Seiler CM, Miserez M (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev, (3) Art. No.: CD007781. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007781.pub2

  44. Elieson MJ, LeBlanc KA (2007) Enterotomy and mortality rates of laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a review of the literature. JSLS 11:408–414

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Toro A, Mannino M, Cappello G, Di Stefano A, Di Carlo I (2012) Comparison of two entry methods for laparoscopic port entry: technical point of view. Diagn and Ther Endosc 2012:305428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. LeBlanc KA, Allain BW Jr, Laparoscopic repair of ventral wall abdominal hernia. Updated: Apr 12, 2012. Cited Apr 21, 2014. Available from: http://laparoscopy.blogs.com/prevention_management_3/2010/10/laparoscopic-repair-of-ventral-wall-abdominal-hernia.html

  47. Gillian GK, Geis WP, Grover G (2002) Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVH): an evolving outpatient technique. JSLS 6:315–322

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bishoff JT, Allaf ME, Kirkels W, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR, Schroder F (1999) Laparoscopic bowel injury: incidence and clinical presentation. J Urol 161:887–890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Henniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, Voeller G (2003) Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years’ experience with 850 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 238:391–400

    Google Scholar 

  50. Siddiqui K, Khan AF (2006) Comparison of frequency of wound infection: open vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 18:21–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mc Greevy JM, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer CM et al (2003) A prospective study comparing the complication rates between laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs. Surg Endosc 17:1778–1780

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Earle D, Seymour N, Fellinger E, Perez A (2006) Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: a single-institution analysis of hospital resource utilization for 884 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 20:71–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Group EuroQol (1990) EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nordlund A, Ekberg K, Kristenson M (2005) EQ-5D in a general population survey—a description of the most commonly reported EQ-5D health states using the SF-36. Qual Life Res 14:1099–1109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bellows CF, Berger DH (2006) Infiltration of suture sites with local anesthesia for management of pain following laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs: a prospective randomized trial. JSLS 10:345–350

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E (2007) Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 335:914–916

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ioannidis JP, Lau J (1998) Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? Lancet 352:590–591

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Smith GD, Egger M (1998) Incommunicable knowledge? Interpreting and applying the results of clinical trials and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 51:289–295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge and thank MJB for presenting the abstract of this paper at The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Annual Scientific Congress, Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore in 2014. The citation for published abstract is “ANZ Journal of Surgery 2014; 84 (Suppl 1): 67”.

Conflict of interest

AA, FR, MBH, RMY, SK, BM and MAM declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jinnah Sindh Medical University and Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

    A. Awaiz

  2. Department of Statistics, Biostatistics and Informatics, Dhaka University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

    F. Rahman & M. B. Hossain

  3. Institute of Mathematical Sciences, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    R. M. Yunus

  4. School of Agricultural, Computing and Environmental Sciences, International Centre for Applied Climate Science, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

    S. Khan

  5. Sunnybank Obesity Centre and SEQS, Suite 9, McCullough Centre, 259 McCullough Street, Sunnybank, QLD, 4109, Australia

    B. Memon & M. A. Memon

  6. Mayne Medical School, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    M. A. Memon

  7. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

    M. A. Memon

  8. Faculty of Health and Social Science, Bolton University, Bolton, Lancashire, UK

    M. A. Memon

Authors
  1. A. Awaiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. B. Hossain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. M. Yunus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Memon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. A. Memon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Memon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Awaiz, A., Rahman, F., Hossain, M.B. et al. Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia. Hernia 19, 449–463 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-015-1351-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-015-1351-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation