Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study with costs analysis on 269 patients

Abstract

Purpose

To compare clinical outcomes and institutional costs of elective laparoscopic and open incisional hernia mesh repairs and to identify independent predictors of prolonged operative time and hospital length of stay (LOS).

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study on 269 consecutive patients who underwent elective incisional hernia mesh repair, laparoscopic group (N = 94) and open group (N = 175), between May 2004 and July 2014.

Results

Operative time was shorter in the laparoscopic versus open group (p < 0.0001). Perioperative morbidity and mortality were similar in the two groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group were discharged a median of 2 days earlier (p < 0.0001). At a median follow-up over 50 months, no difference in hernia recurrence was detected between the groups. In laparoscopic group total institutional costs were lower (p = 0.02). At Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders, large wall defect (W3) and higher operative risk (ASA score 3–4) were associated with prolonged operative time, while midline hernia site was associated with increased hospital LOS. Open surgical approach was associated with prolongation of both operative time and LOS.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic approach may be considered safely to all patients for incisional hernia repair, regardless of patients' characteristics (age, gender, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities) and size of the wall defect (W2-3), with the advantage of shorter operating time and hospital LOS that yields reduced total institutional costs. Patients with higher ASA score and large hernia defects are at risk of prolonged operative time, while an open approach is associated with longer duration of surgical operation and hospital LOS.

http://ift.tt/2nX4ck7