Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic or open surgery for incisional hernia repair using meta-analytical techniques.
Methods: A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes on laparoscopic versus open surgery for incisional hernia repair. A random-effect meta-analytical model was used and subgroup analysis performed on high-quality studies, those reporting on more than 30 patients, and those published since 2000.
Results: Five studies, with a total of 351 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Laparoscopic surgery was attempted in 148 (42.2%) patients. Overall, in the laparoscopic group, operative time was significantly longer--by 12.0 minutes (P = 0.03) and length of stay reduced by 3.3 days (P < 0.003) although this finding was associated with significant heterogeneity between studies (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the short-term adverse events between the groups, but there were fewer wound infections for laparoscopic patients in high-quality studies [odds ratio (OR) = 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05, 0.85, P = 0.03] and those reporting on more than 30 patients (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.84, P = 0.03). No difference in hernia recurrence was shown in the overall or subgroup analysis.
Conclusions: Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair was associated with a reduced length of stay and lower wound infection rate. The impact on post-operative quality of life and financial implications needs further prospective, validated evaluation.