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

AIM: The literature indicates that patients with prior pelvic surgery, particularly radical prostatectomy, pose challenges in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR). However, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the impact of pelvic surgery on postoperative complications. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of previous prostatectomy in men undergoing MIS IHR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central, Scopus, SciELO, Lilacs, and PubMed/MEDLINE for studies comparing men undergoing MIS IHR after prostatectomy with men without previous pelvic surgery. Key outcomes evaluated included recurrence, overall postoperative complications, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), conversion rates, and operative time. RESULTS: Out of 402 screened studies, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, three analyzed totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique, while four analyzed transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and two presented both techniques together. The analysis comprised 189,183 patients, of which 4551 (2.4%) had a history of prostatectomy. The analysis revealed that post-prostatectomy patients presented higher postoperative complications (3.7% vs. 1.9%; RR 1.9; 95% CI [1.23; 2.94]; P = 0.004) and seroma (1.6% vs. 0.9%; RR 1.58; 95% CI [1.23; 2.04]; P < 0.001) following MIS IHR. Additionally, patients with a previous prostatectomy presented an increased operative time (MD 21.25 min; 95% CI [19.1; 23.4]; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in recurrence (0.98% vs. 0.92%; RR 1.1; 95% CI [0.8; 1.53]; P = 0.54), SSI (0.07% VS. 0.07%; RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.34; 2.9]; P = 0.98), hematoma (3.6% vs. 1.2%; RR 3.18; 95% CI [0.84; 12.1]; P = 0.09), and conversion rates (1.1% vs. 0.9%; RR 1.26; 95% CI [0.91; 1.72]; P = 0.16). However, subgroup analysis of TEP technique in patients with previous prostatectomy showed higher conversion rates (2.4% vs. 0%; RR 20; 95% CI [2.9; 138.2]; P < 0.01). Analysis using funnel plots showed the absence of publication bias in the study outcomes. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis indicates that patients with a history of prostatectomy undergoing MIS IHR may present higher postoperative complications and an increased operative time. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the cumulative impact of MIS IHR in patients with previous prostatectomy.

The Impact of a Specialized Hernia Center and Standardized Practices on Surgical Outcomes in Hernia Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Aim: Hernia registries report that guidelines are not always implemented by general surgeons and suggest that the success rate of this procedure is higher in hernia specialty centers. There are many definitions of hernia centers, but their objectives consist of improving healthcare by homogenizing the clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze hernia centers' definitions and compare hernia centers with non-specialized centers. Material and Methods: Cochrane Central, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies defining a hernia center or comparing hernia centers and non-specialized centers. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, surgical site events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and operative time. We performed subgroup analyses of hernia type. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. Results: 3,260 studies were screened and 88 were thoroughly reviewed. Thirteen studies were included. Five studies defined a hernia center and eight studies, comprising 141,366 patients, compared a hernia center with a non-specialized center. Generally, the definitions were similar in decision-making and educational requirements but differed in structural aspects and the steps required for the certification. We found lower recurrence rates for hernia centers for both inguinal (1.08% versus 5.11%; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.23; p < 0.001) and ventral hernia (3.2% vs. 8.9%; RR 0.425; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64; p < 0.001). Hernia centers also presented lower surgical site infection for both ventral (4.3% vs. 11.9%; RR 0.435; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90; p = 0.026) and inguinal (0.1% vs. 0.52%; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99; p = 0.49) repair. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis support that a hernia center establishment improves postoperative outcomes data. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024522263, PROSPERO CRD42024522263.

The impact of smoking on ventral and inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Individual studies indicate poorer outcomes for smokers after hernia repair. Previous meta-analyses have examined the impact of smoking on specific outcomes such as recurrence and surgical site infection, but there has been a lack of comprehensive consensus or systematic review on this subject. Addressing this gap, our study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of smoking on the outcomes of ventral hernia repair (VHR) and inguinal hernia repair. SOURCE: A thorough search of Cochrane Central, Scopus, SciELO, and PubMed/MEDLINE, focusing on studies that examined the effect of smoking on inguinal and VHR outcomes was conducted. Key outcomes evaluated included recurrence, reoperation, surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and seroma. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Out of 3296 screened studies, 42 met the inclusion criteria. These comprised 25 studies (69,295 patients) on VHR and 17 studies (204,337 patients) on inguinal hernia repair. The analysis revealed that smokers had significantly higher rates of recurrence (10.4% vs. 9.1%; RR 1.48; 95% CI [1.15; 1.90]; P < 0.01), SSO (13.6% vs. 12.7%; RR 1.44; 95% CI [1.12; 1.86]; P < 0.01) and SSI (6.6% vs. 4.2%; RR 1.64; 95% CI [1.38; 1.94]; P < 0.01) following VHR. Additionally, smokers undergoing inguinal hernia repair showed higher recurrence (9% vs. 8.7%; RR 1.91; 95% CI [1.21; 3.01]; P < 0.01), SSI (0.6% vs. 0.3%; RR 1.6; 95% CI [1.21; 2.0]; P < 0.001), and chronic pain (9.9% vs. 10%; RR 1.24; 95% CI [1.06; 1.45]; P < 0.01) rates. No significant differences were observed in seroma (RR 2.63; 95% CI [0.88; 7.91]; P = 0.084) and reoperation rates (RR 1.48; 95% CI [0.77; 2.85]; P = 0.236) for VHR, and in reoperation rates (RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.51; 1.91]; P = 0.978) for inguinal hernias between smokers and non-smokers. Analysis using funnel plots and Egger's test showed the absence of publication bias in the study outcomes. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis found statistically significant increases in recurrence rates, and immediate postoperative complications, such as SSO and SSI following inguinal and VHR. Also, our subgroup analysis suggests that the MIS approach seems to be protective of adverse outcomes in the smokers group. However, our findings suggest that these findings are not of clinical relevance, so our data do not support the necessity of smoking cessation before hernia surgery. More studies are needed to elucidate the specific consequences of smoking in both inguinal and ventral hernia repair. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID CRD42024517640.

Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) versus minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique is an open approach to groin hernia repair with posteriorly positioned mesh supposed to reduce recurrence rates. However, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques have similar mesh positioning with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TIPP and MIS for groin hernia repair. SOURCE: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TIPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, chronic pain, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, and hematoma. We performed a subgroup analysis of TAPP and TEP techniques separately. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 81 studies were screened and 19 were thoroughly reviewed. Six studies were included, of which two compared TIPP with TEP technique, two compared TIPP with TAPP, and two compared TIPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower recurrence rates for the TEP technique compared to TIPP (0.38% versus 1.19%; RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.11; P = 0.04). Also, we found lower seroma rates for TIPP group on the overall analysis (RR 0.21; P = 0.002). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding overall recurrence (RR 1.6; P = 0.19), chronic pain (RR 1.53; P = 0.2), SSI (RR 2.51; P = 0.47), and hematoma (RR 1.29; P = 0.76) between MIS and TIPP. No statistically significant differences were found in the subgroup analysis of TAPP technique for all the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found no differences between TIPP and MIS approaches in the overall analysis of recurrence, SSI, and chronic pain rates. Further research is needed to analyze individual techniques and draw a more precise conclusion on this subject. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID CRD42024530107, April 8, 2024.

Does the Weight Matter? Short-Term Outcomes of Lightweight Versus Heavyweight Three-Dimensional Anatomical Mesh in Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Background: The type of mesh used in inguinal hernia repairs remains controversial. There are limited data looking at specific mesh-related complications. The objective of this study is to assess postoperative 90-day outcomes in lightweight (LW) and heavyweight (HW) anatomical mesh in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. Methods: A retrospective single-center database was queried for all adult minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs with anatomical mesh from July 2016 to March 2021. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. Results: Six hundred forty-seven minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs were performed with 423 (65.3%) using HW and 224 (24.7%) using LW mesh. There was no difference in mean body mass index between the groups (26.9 ± 4.2 kg/m2 in the LW group and 27.1 ± 4.2 kg/m2 in the HW group; P = .69). There was no difference in type of mesh fixation used in either group, with tacker being the most common. There was no difference in postoperative emergency department (ED) visit (P = .625), readmission rates (P = .562), or postoperative complications between the two groups. Fifty patients presented with seroma within 90 days. There were five recurrences in each group and only one surgical site infection in the LW within 90 days. Multivariate logistic regression was performed, and predictors of seroma formation included age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; confidence interval [CI] 1-1.04; P = .02) and hypertension (HTN) (OR 1.8; CI 1.03-3.4; P = .039). HW mesh was not associated with seroma formation (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.9; P = .895). Similarly, HW mesh was not associated with surgical site occurrences (SSO) (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.8; P = .872). HTN was associated with SSO (OR 1.74; CI 1-3.05; P = .048). Conclusion: Our study did not favor the use of LW or HW mesh when comparing postoperative complications or clinical outcomes. HW mesh was not associated with either seroma formation or SSO.