This systematic review and meta-analysis compared three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy against two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy for repairing inguinal hernias in adults. The analysis included data from 521 patients. Researchers looked at total operative time, visualization quality, sharpness of images, and postoperative complications. The study found that 3D laparoscopy led to a shorter total operative time. It also showed better visualization contrast. There was no difference in image sharpness or the rate of postoperative complications between the two methods. No adverse events or discontinuations were reported in the safety data. However, the evidence has very low certainty. This uncertainty comes from variability in surgeon experience and substantial differences between the studies included in the analysis. Readers should interpret these results with caution. The high variability in surgeon experience suggests that outcomes may depend heavily on the individual surgeon's skill level. While the data points to potential benefits for 3D technology, the limitations mean these findings should not be seen as definitive proof of superiority in all settings. Further research with more consistent methods is needed to confirm these results.
Systematic review and meta-analysis shows 3D laparoscopy reduces operative time in adult inguinal hernia repairMeta-analysis shows 3D laparoscopy shortens time for inguinal hernia repair
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This systematic review and meta-analysis compares three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy for inguinal hernia repair in adults. The analysis included n=521 patients, though the setting was not reported. The primary outcome was total operative time, while secondary outcomes included visualization and postoperative complications. Follow-up duration was not reported.
Results indicated that 3D laparoscopy favored shorter total operative time with a mean difference of -18.48 min and a 95% CI of -29.27, -7.69; p = 0.0008. For visualization contrast, 3D was favored with a mean difference of 2.11 and a 95% CI of 0.56, 3.67; p = 0.008. Visualization sharpness showed no statistically significant difference with a mean difference of 1.49 and a 95% CI of -0.25 to 3.24; p = 0.09. Postoperative complications showed no difference with a mean difference of 1.11 and a 95% CI of 0.75, 1.65; p = 0.59.
Safety data such as adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability were not reported. The authors highlight substantial heterogeneity with an I-squared of 94% and variability in surgeon experience. The certainty of evidence is very low. Interpretation of results should be done with caution due to these limitations.