Meta-analysis and review of prospective randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein techniques in recurrent inguinal hernia repair

The hypothesis of this meta-analysis was to assess whether laparoscopic approach shows real benefits over Lichtenstein technique in recurrent inguinal hernia repair. A literature search for prospective randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein procedure in recurrent inguinal hernia repair was performed. Trials were reviewed for primary outcome measures: re-recurrence, chronic inguinal pain and ischemic orchitis; and for secondary outcome measures. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables and odds ratio for dichotomous variables. Seven studies comparing laparoscopic and Lichtenstein technique were considered suitable for the pooled analysis. Overall 647 patients with recurrent inguinal hernia were randomized to either laparoscopic repair (333, 51.5 %, transabdominal preperitoneal approach, TAPP and totally extraperitoneal approach, TEP) or anterior open repair (314, 48.5 %, Lichtenstein operation). Patients who underwent laparoscopic repair experienced significantly less chronic pain (9.2 % vs. 21.5 %, p = 0.003). Patients of the laparoscopic group had a significantly earlier return to normal daily activities (13.9 vs. 18.4 days, SMD = -0.68, 95 % CI = -0.94 to -0.43, p < 0.000001). Operative time was significantly longer in laparoscopic operations (62.9 vs. 54.2 min, SMD 0.46, 95 % CI 0.03, 0.89; p = 0.04). No other differences were found. Laparoscopy showed reduced chronic inguinal pain and an earlier return to normal daily activities but significantly longer operative time. Despite the expected advantages, the choice between laparoscopy and other techniques still depends on local expertise availability. Only dedicated centers are able to routinely offer laparoscopy for recurrent inguinal hernia repair.