Abstract:Background: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequently performed operation in general surgery. The standard method for inguinal hernia repair had changed little over a hundred years until the introduction of synthetic mesh. This mesh can be placed by either using an open approach or by using a minimal access laparoscopic technique. Although many studies have explored the relative merits and potential risks of laparoscopic surgery for the repair of inguinal hernia, most individual trials have been too small to show clear benefits of one type of surgical repair over another. Objectives: The objective of this review was to compare minimal access laparoscopic mesh techniques with open techniques. Comparisons of open mesh techniques versus open non-mesh techniques have been considered in a separate Cochrane review. Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Registry for relevant randomised controlled trials. The reference list of identified trials, journal supplements, relevant book chapters and conference proceedings were searched for further relevant trials. Through the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration (EUHTC) communication took place with authors of identified randomised controlled trials to ask for information on any other recent and ongoing trials known to them. Specialists involved in research on the repair of inguinal hernia were contacted to ask for information about any further completed and ongoing trials. The world wide web was also searched. Selection criteria: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic groin hernia repair with open groin hernia repair were eligible for inclusion. Trials were included irrespective of the language in which they were reported. Data collection and analysis: Individual patient data were obtained, where possible, from the responsible trialist for all eligible studies. All reanalyses were cross-checked by the reviewers and verified by the trialists before inclusion. Where IPD were unavailable additional aggregate data were sought from trialists and published aggregate data checked and verified by the trialists. IPD were available for 25 trials, additional aggregated data for seven and published data only for nine. Where possible, time to event analysis for hernia recurrence and return to usual activities were performed on an intention to treat principle. The main analyses were based on all trials. Sensitivity analyses based on the data source and trial quality were also performed. Pre-defined subgroup analyses based on recurrent hernias, bilateral hernias and femoral hernias were also carried out. Main results: 41 published reports of eligible trials were included involving 7161 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 38 to 994, with follow-up from 6 weeks to 36 months. Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopic groups (WMD 14.81 minutes, 95% CI 13.98 to 15.64; p<0001). Operative complications were uncommon for both methods but more frequent in the laparoscopic group for visceral (Overall 8/2315 versus 1/2599) and vascular (Overall 7/2498 versus 5/2758) injuries. Length of hospital stay did not differ between groups (WMD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; p=0.05, but return to usual activity was earlier for laparoscopic groups (HR 0.56, 95%CI 0.51 to 0.61; p<0.0001 - equivalent to 7 days). The data available showed less persisting pain (Overall 290/2101 versus 459/2399; Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.64; p<0.0001), and less persisting numbness (Overall 102/1419 versus 217/1624; Peto OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.4286 to 0.49; p<0.0001) in the laparoscopic groups. In total, 86 recurrences were reported amongst 3138 allocated laparoscopic repair and 109 amongst 3504 allocated to open repair (Peto OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08; p = 0.16). The use of mesh during laparoscopic hernia repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of hernia recurrence, significantly so for the transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) versus open non-mesh repair (overall 26/1440 versus preperitoneal repair (TAPP) versus open non-mesh repair (overall 26/1440 versus 47/1119; Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; p=0.0009). However, no difference was detected when comparing laparoscopic methods with open mesh methods of hernia repair. Reviewer's conclusions: The use of mesh during laparoscopic hernia repair is associated with a relative reduction in the risk of hernia recurrence of around 30-50%. However, there is no apparent difference in recurrence between laparoscopic and open mesh methods of hernia repair. The data suggests less persisting pain and numbness following laparoscopic repair. Return to usual activities is faster. However, operation times are longer and there appears to be a higher risk of serious complication rate in respect of visceral (especially bladder) and vascular injuries.

Navigating hernia sac management in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: to abandon or to reduce? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Is the transection of the hernia sac during laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty safe and feasible? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Is previous prostatectomy a risk factor for postoperative complications following minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Treatment of Inguinal Hernia: Systematic Review and Updated Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

UMBILICAL AND EPIGASTRIC HERNIA REPAIR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Effect of Complete Reduction of Hernia Sac and Transection of Hernia Sac During Laparoscopic Indirect Inguinal Hernia Repair on Seroma

Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Fascia defect closure versus non-closure in minimal invasive direct inguinal hernia mesh repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence

Operative versus conservative management for inguinal hernia: a methodology scoping review of randomized controlled trials

Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair

Comparison of postoperative chronic inguinal pain between the lichtenstein and laparoscopic techniques in the treatment of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Inguinal hernias in children: Update on management guidelines

Comparison between the open and the laparoscopic approach in the primary ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic versus lichtenstein hernioplasty for inguinal hernias: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To Ligate or Not to Ligate? Managing the Difficult Indirect Sac in Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Repair of the Inguinal Hernia

Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoendoscopic extraperitoneal surgical techniques for ventral hernias and diastasis recti repair: a systematic review

A comparative study between open pre-peritoneal approach versus laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach in recurrent inguinal hernia repair: a prospective cohort study

Transabdominal Pre-Peritoneal Versus Open Repair for Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia: A Meta-analysis