Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24777660›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2014

Laparoscopic versus open incisional and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yanyan Zhang, Haiyang Zhou, Yunsheng Chai, Can Cao, Kaizhou Jin, Zhiqian Hu

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yanyan ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, People's Republic of China.
Haiyang Zhou
Yunsheng Chai
Can Cao
Kaizhou Jin
Zhiqian Hu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is an alternative approach to conventional open incisional and ventral hernia repair (OIVHR). A consensus on outcomes of LIVHR when compared with OIVHR has not been reached.

methodsAs the basis for the present study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing LIVHR and OIVHR.

resultsEleven studies involving 1,003 patients were enrolled. The incidences of wound infection were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than that in the open group (laparoscopic group 2.8 %, open group 16.2 %; RR = 0.19, 95 % CI 0.11-0.32; P < 0.00001). The rates of wound drainage were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than that in the open group (laparoscopic group 2.6 %, open group 67.0 %; RR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.03-0.09; P < 0.00001). However, the rates of bowel injury were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (laparoscopic group 4.3 %, open group 0.81 %; RR = 3.68, 95 % CI 1.56-8.67; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of hernia recurrence, postoperative seroma, hematoma, bowel obstruction, bleeding, and reoperation. Descriptive analyses showed a shorter length of hospital stay in the laparoscopic group.

conclusionsLaparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair is a feasible and effective alternative to the open technique. It is associated with lower incidences of wound infection and shorter length of hospital stay. However, caution is required because it is associated with an increased risk of bowel injury compared with the open technique. Given the relatively short follow-up duration of trials included in the systematic review, trials with long-term follow-up are needed to compare the durability of laparoscopic and open repair.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyHematomaHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyHumansIntestinal ObstructionIntestinal PerforationLength of StayRecurrenceReoperationSeromaSurgical Wound InfectionTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24777660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.