Abstract Background Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair are the most used laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia treatment. However, many studies have shown that laparoscopic hernia repair compared with open hernia repair (OHR) may offer less pain and shorter convalescence. Few studies compared the clinical efficacy between TEP and TAPP technique. The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison between TEP and TAPP for inguinal hernia repair to show the best approach. Methods We performed an indirect comparison between TEP and TAPP techniques by considering only randomized, controlled trials comparing TEP with OHR and TAPP with OHR in a network meta-analysis. We considered the following outcomes: operative time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, postoperative pain, time to return to work, and recurrences. Results The two techniques improved some short outcomes (such as time to return to work) with respect to OHR. In the network meta-analysis, TEP and TAPP were equivalent for operative time, postoperative complications, postoperative pain, time to return to work, and recurrences, whereas TAPP was associated with a slightly longer hospital stay compared with TEP. Conclusions TEP and TAPP improved clinical outcomes compared with OHR, but the network meta-analysis showed that TEP and TAPP efficacy is equivalent. TAPP was associated with a slightly longer hospital stay compared with TEP.
Background: Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair are the most used laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia treatment. However, many studies have shown that laparoscopic hernia repair compared with open hernia repair (OHR) may offer less pain and shorter convalescence. Few studies compared the clinical efficacy between TEP and TAPP technique. The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison between TEP and TAPP for inguinal hernia repair to show the best approach. Methods: We performed an indirect comparison between TEP and TAPP techniques by considering only randomized, controlled trials comparing TEP with OHR and TAPP with OHR in a network meta-analysis. We considered the following outcomes: operative time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, postoperative pain, time to return to work, and recurrences. Results: The two techniques improved some short outcomes (such as time to return to work) with respect to OHR. In the network meta-analysis, TEP and TAPP were equivalent for operative time, postoperative complications, postoperative pain, time to return to work, and recurrences, whereas TAPP was associated with a slightly longer hospital stay compared with TEP. Conclusions: TEP and TAPP improved clinical outcomes compared with OHR, but the network meta-analysis showed that TEP and TAPP efficacy is equivalent. TAPP was associated with a slightly longer hospital stay compared with TEP. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012.
Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis
MELILLO, Paolo;
2012
Abstract
Background: Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair are the most used laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia treatment. However, many studies have shown that laparoscopic hernia repair compared with open hernia repair (OHR) may offer less pain and shorter convalescence. Few studies compared the clinical efficacy between TEP and TAPP technique. The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison between TEP and TAPP for inguinal hernia repair to show the best approach. Methods: We performed an indirect comparison between TEP and TAPP techniques by considering only randomized, controlled trials comparing TEP with OHR and TAPP with OHR in a network meta-analysis. We considered the following outcomes: operative time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, postoperative pain, time to return to work, and recurrences. Results: The two techniques improved some short outcomes (such as time to return to work) with respect to OHR. In the network meta-analysis, TEP and TAPP were equivalent for operative time, postoperative complications, postoperative pain, time to return to work, and recurrences, whereas TAPP was associated with a slightly longer hospital stay compared with TEP. Conclusions: TEP and TAPP improved clinical outcomes compared with OHR, but the network meta-analysis showed that TEP and TAPP efficacy is equivalent. TAPP was associated with a slightly longer hospital stay compared with TEP. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
