Ana Caroline Dias Rasador, Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, Diego Laurentino Lima, Raquel Nogueira, Flavio Malcher, Prashanth Sreeramoju, Leandro T Cavazzola
{"title":"选择性原发性脐疝开放修补术中网片与缝合的比较：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ana Caroline Dias Rasador, Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, Diego Laurentino Lima, Raquel Nogueira, Flavio Malcher, Prashanth Sreeramoju, Leandro T Cavazzola","doi":"10.1007/s10029-024-03106-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2895 studies were screened and 56 were reviewed. 12 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 7 retrospective cohorts were included, comprising 2926 patients in total (47.6% in mesh group and 52.4% in the suture group). Mesh repair showed lower rates of recurrence in the overall analysis (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; P = 0.003; I<sup>2</sup> = 24%) and for hernia defects smaller than 2 cm (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93; P = 0.03; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Suture repair showed lower rates of seroma (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.32; P = 0.03; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.65; 95%CI 1.12 to 2.43; P = 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the mesh repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).</p>","PeriodicalId":13168,"journal":{"name":"Hernia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mesh versus suture for elective primary umbilical hernia open repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Caroline Dias Rasador, Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira, Diego Laurentino Lima, Raquel Nogueira, Flavio Malcher, Prashanth Sreeramoju, Leandro T Cavazzola\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10029-024-03106-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2895 studies were screened and 56 were reviewed. 12 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 7 retrospective cohorts were included, comprising 2926 patients in total (47.6% in mesh group and 52.4% in the suture group). Mesh repair showed lower rates of recurrence in the overall analysis (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; P = 0.003; I<sup>2</sup> = 24%) and for hernia defects smaller than 2 cm (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93; P = 0.03; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Suture repair showed lower rates of seroma (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.32; P = 0.03; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.65; 95%CI 1.12 to 2.43; P = 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the mesh repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hernia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hernia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03106-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hernia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03106-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Mesh versus suture for elective primary umbilical hernia open repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR.
Methods: We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%.
Results: 2895 studies were screened and 56 were reviewed. 12 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 7 retrospective cohorts were included, comprising 2926 patients in total (47.6% in mesh group and 52.4% in the suture group). Mesh repair showed lower rates of recurrence in the overall analysis (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; P = 0.003; I2 = 24%) and for hernia defects smaller than 2 cm (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). Suture repair showed lower rates of seroma (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.32; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.65; 95%CI 1.12 to 2.43; P = 0.01; I2 = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay.
Conclusion: The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the mesh repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs.
Study registration: A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).
期刊介绍：
Hernia was founded in 1997 by Jean P. Chevrel with the purpose of promoting clinical studies and basic research as they apply to groin hernias and the abdominal wall . Since that time, a true revolution in the field of hernia studies has transformed the field from a ”simple” disease to one that is very specialized. While the majority of surgeries for primary inguinal and abdominal wall hernia are performed in hospitals worldwide, complex situations such as multi recurrences, complications, abdominal wall reconstructions and others are being studied and treated in specialist centers. As a result, major institutions and societies are creating specific parameters and criteria to better address the complexities of hernia surgery.
Hernia is a journal written by surgeons who have made abdominal wall surgery their specific field of interest, but we will consider publishing content from any surgeon who wishes to improve the science of this field. The Journal aims to ensure that hernia surgery is safer and easier for surgeons as well as patients, and provides a forum to all surgeons in the exchange of new ideas, results, and important research that is the basis of professional activity.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
