TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Inguinal Hernia Repair
AU - Meier, Jennie
AU - Stevens, Audrey
AU - Berger, Miles
AU - Makris, Konstantinos I.
AU - Bramos, Athanasios
AU - Reisch, Joan
AU - Cullum, C. Munro
AU - Lee, Simon C.
AU - Sugg Skinner, Celette
AU - Zeh, Herbert
AU - Brown, Cynthia J.
AU - Balentine, Courtney J.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by a GEMSSTAR grant from the National Institute of Aging and a Paul B. Beeson Career Development Award (1R03AG056330 and K76AG068515 for Dr Balentine). Dr Brown was supported in part by a VA Rehabilitation R&D Merit Award (1 I01 RX001995). Dr Berger acknowledges funding support from National Institutes of Health Paul B. Beeson Career Development Award K76AG057022 and additional support from National Institutes of Health P30AG028716 and the Duke Anesthesiology Department.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/2/8
Y1 - 2023/2/8
N2 - Importance: Advocates of laparoscopic surgery argue that all inguinal hernias, including initial and unilateral ones, should be repaired laparoscopically. Prior work suggests outcomes of open repair are improved by using local rather than general anesthesia, but no prior studies have compared laparoscopic surgery with open repair under local anesthesia. Objective: To evaluate postoperative outcomes of open inguinal hernia repair under general or local anesthesia compared with laparoscopic repair. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study identified 107073 patients in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database who underwent unilateral initial inguinal hernia repair from 1998 to 2019. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: Patients were divided into 3 groups for comparison: (1) open repair with local anesthesia (n = 22333), (2) open repair with general anesthesia (n = 75104), and (3) laparoscopic repair with general anesthesia (n = 9636). Main Outcomes and Measures: Operative time and postoperative morbidity were compared using quantile regression and inverse probability propensity weighting. A 2-stage least-squares regression and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to quantify and address bias from unmeasured confounding in this observational study. Results: Of 107073 included patients, 106529 (99.5%) were men, and the median (IQR) age was 63 (55-71) years. Compared with open repair with general anesthesia, laparoscopic repair was associated with a nonsignificant 0.15% (95% CI, -0.39 to 0.09; P =.22) reduction in postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in complications between laparoscopic surgery and open repair with local anesthesia (-0.05%; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.28; P =.70). Operative time was similar for the laparoscopic and open general anesthesia groups (4.31 minutes; 95% CI, 0.45-8.57; P =.048), but operative times were significantly longer for laparoscopic compared with open repair under local anesthesia (10.42 minutes; 95% CI, 5.80-15.05; P <.001). Sensitivity analysis and 2-stage least-squares regression demonstrated that these findings were robust to bias from unmeasured confounding. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, laparoscopic and open repair with local anesthesia were reasonable options for patients with initial unilateral inguinal hernias, and the decision should be made considering both patient and surgeon factors..
AB - Importance: Advocates of laparoscopic surgery argue that all inguinal hernias, including initial and unilateral ones, should be repaired laparoscopically. Prior work suggests outcomes of open repair are improved by using local rather than general anesthesia, but no prior studies have compared laparoscopic surgery with open repair under local anesthesia. Objective: To evaluate postoperative outcomes of open inguinal hernia repair under general or local anesthesia compared with laparoscopic repair. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study identified 107073 patients in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database who underwent unilateral initial inguinal hernia repair from 1998 to 2019. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: Patients were divided into 3 groups for comparison: (1) open repair with local anesthesia (n = 22333), (2) open repair with general anesthesia (n = 75104), and (3) laparoscopic repair with general anesthesia (n = 9636). Main Outcomes and Measures: Operative time and postoperative morbidity were compared using quantile regression and inverse probability propensity weighting. A 2-stage least-squares regression and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to quantify and address bias from unmeasured confounding in this observational study. Results: Of 107073 included patients, 106529 (99.5%) were men, and the median (IQR) age was 63 (55-71) years. Compared with open repair with general anesthesia, laparoscopic repair was associated with a nonsignificant 0.15% (95% CI, -0.39 to 0.09; P =.22) reduction in postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in complications between laparoscopic surgery and open repair with local anesthesia (-0.05%; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.28; P =.70). Operative time was similar for the laparoscopic and open general anesthesia groups (4.31 minutes; 95% CI, 0.45-8.57; P =.048), but operative times were significantly longer for laparoscopic compared with open repair under local anesthesia (10.42 minutes; 95% CI, 5.80-15.05; P <.001). Sensitivity analysis and 2-stage least-squares regression demonstrated that these findings were robust to bias from unmeasured confounding. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, laparoscopic and open repair with local anesthesia were reasonable options for patients with initial unilateral inguinal hernias, and the decision should be made considering both patient and surgeon factors..
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147783493&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85147783493&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.6616
DO - 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.6616
M3 - Article
C2 - 36542394
AN - SCOPUS:85147783493
SN - 2168-6254
VL - 158
SP - 172
EP - 180
JO - JAMA Surgery
JF - JAMA Surgery
IS - 2
ER -