| Title |
Laparoscopic versus open umbilical or paraumbilical hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Hernia, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10029-017-1683-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Hajibandeh, S. Hajibandeh, A. Sreh, A. Khan, D. Subar, L. Jones |
| Abstract |
To compare outcomes of laparoscopic repair to open repair of umbilical and paraumbilical hernias. We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. The review protocol was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration Number: CRD42016052131). We conducted a search of electronic information sources, including MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of laparoscopic repair to open repair of umbilical and paraumbilical hernias. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively. Random effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data. We identified three RCTs and seven retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 16,549 patients. Our analyses indicated that open repair was associated with a higher risk of wound infection [Odds ratio (OR) 2.35, 95% CI 1.23-4.48, P = 0.010], wound dehiscence (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.12-22.28, P = 0.04) and recurrence (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.54-10.71, P = 0.005), longer length of hospital stay (MD 26.85, 95% CI 8.15-45.55, P = 0.005) and shorter operative time [Mean difference (MD) - 23.07, 95% CI - 36.78 to - 9.35, P = 0.0010] compared to laparoscopic repair. There was no difference in the risk of haematoma (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.22-18.73, P = 0.53) or seroma (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19-2.32, P = 0.53) between the two groups. The best available evidence (randomised and non-randomised studies) suggests that laparoscopic repair of umbilical or paraumbilical hernias may be associated with a lower risk of wound infection, wound dehiscence and recurrence rate, shorter length of stay but longer operative time. Results from a limited number of RCTs showed no difference in recurrence rates. The quality of the best available evidence is moderate, and selection bias is the major concern due to non-randomised design in most of the available studies. Therefore, considering the level of available evidence, the most reliable approach for repair of umbilical or paraumbilical hernia should be based on surgeon's experience, clinical setting, patient's age and size, hernia defect size and anatomical characteristics. High quality RCTs are required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,366,847
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Hernia
#579
of 1,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,166
of 326,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hernia
#15
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.