Incisional hernia: repair retrospective comparison of laparoscopic and open techniques.

PURPOSE

A retrospective clinical trial was conducted to compare laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) and open traditional repair (OR). Demographics, perioperative data, results, and follow-up data were examined to determine whether there was any difference in outcome, recurrences, and costs.

METHODS

From January 2000 to June 2002, 42 consecutive, unselected patients who successfully underwent LIHR were matched with 49 consecutive, unselected patients who received OR during the same period. The operating room database, clinical files, and outpatient sheets were examined. Patient demographics, results, follow-up data, and costs were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics, obesity, ASA status, type of hernia, concomitant surgery, urgencies, and incidences of previous repair were well matched between the two groups. Hernia defect was significantly larger in the OR group (122 cm2) than in the LIHR group (83 cm2; p = 0.0006). The operative times and the overall complications rates were similar, but wound infections were more common in the OR group (12% vs 0%; p = 0.04). The analgesic requirement was smaller (mean ketorolac injections, 2 vs 5; p < 0.0001; additional opiates, 0% vs 24%; p = 0.0006) and the hospital stay was shorter (5 vs 8 days; p < 0.0001) in the LIHR group. No recurrences were noted in the LIHR group, but there were three recurrences (6%) in the OR group ( p = 0.30, not statistically significant). The cost of the prosthesis was higher for laparoscopic procedure, although the reduction in the hospital stay largely balanced the overall cost ( p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, LIHR appeared to be as safe as OR. Despite the fact that LIHR raised the prosthesis-related costs, the findings showed that LIHR has clinical (less wound complications, shorter hospital stay, reduced pain) and financial advantages over OR.