RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Groin hernia repair (GHR) is a performed procedure worldwide, with approximately 20 million surgeries carried out each year. Despite being less common in females, there is a lack of research on how sex influences the outcomes of GHR. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess how patient sex impacts results in GHR. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched for studies up to October 2023 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The studies included focused on sex outcomes for both robotic and open GHR procedures. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - Of Interventions tool. Our statistical analysis was performed using the metafor package in RStudio. RESULTS: After screening a total of 3917 articles, we identified 29 studies that met our criteria, comprising a total of 1,236,694 patients. Among them, 98,641 (7.98%) patients were females. Our findings showed that females had higher rates of hernia recurrence (RR 1.28), chronic pain (RR 1.52), and surgical site infections (SSIs) (RR 1.46) compared to males. Females showed a lower tendency to undergo minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with a relative risk of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69-0.97; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Females tend to face higher rates of complications after GHR such as an elevated risk of chronic pain, recurrence, and surgical site infections (SSI). Moreover, they undergo fewer MIS options compared to males. These results underscore the importance of research to enhance outcomes for women undergoing GHR.
RESUMO
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.