Meta-Analysis of Single-Port vs Two-Port Laparoscopy for Pediatric Inguinal Hernia

A systematic review and meta-analysis document comparing the efficacy and safety of two laparoscopic surgical techniques for pediatric inguinal hernia. The analysis includes 13 studies involving 22,846 children, with data extracted from major medical databases up to December 31, 2025. The document was authored by Bo Yang and last updated in May 2026.

Use Cases

• Compare postoperative recurrence rates between single-port and two-port laparoscopic techniques based on the meta-analysis results.
• Analyze differences in operation time and hospital stay between surgical methods based on subgroup findings.
• Evaluate the safety profile of different laparoscopic approaches based on complication rate data.
• Inform clinical decision-making for hernia repair in children based on the synthesized evidence for complex cases or technical limitations.

Strengths

• Analysis is based on 13 included studies, providing a multi-study perspective.
• The total patient population is 22,846 children, indicating a substantial aggregate sample size.
• Risk of bias was assessed using standardized tools (ROB2 and ROBINS-I).
• Specific statistical results are reported, such as a recurrence rate Risk Ratio of 0.60 with a 95% Confidence Interval.

Limitations

• The dataset is a 16.1 KB DOCX document, indicating a very limited textual summary rather than raw research data.
• Column-level documentation is absent; field semantics must be inferred after download.
• Row count is unknown, which may limit suitability assessment for quantitative analysis.

Provenance

Source

figshare

Collection Method

Systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, with meta-analysis performed using RevMan and R software.

Time Range

Studies from database inception to December 31, 2025.

Freshness

Last updated 2026-05-08 05:55:27; freshness should be verified.

Geography

Likely global, but specific geographic coverage of included studies is not detailed.