Zhixue Fang1, Jianping Zhou1, Feng Ren2, Dongcai Liu1. 1. Department of Geriatrics Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139, Middle Renmin Road, Changsha, Hunan 410011, P.R. China. 2. Department of Geriatrics Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139, Middle Renmin Road, Changsha, Hunan 410011, P.R. China. Electronic address: feng.ren1988@outlook.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this article was to compare the outcomes of self-gripping mesh (GM) with sutured mesh (SM) in open inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were taken to compare the outcomes of GM and SM in open inguinal hernia repair. RESULTS: A total of 1,353 patients in 6 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies were reviewed (666 patients in GM group; 687 patients in SM group). The 2 groups did not significantly differ in chronic groin pain (P = .23) or recurrence (P = .59). The operating time was significantly shorter in GM group (P < .00001). There was no significant difference in infection (P = .18), seromas (P = .35), hematomas (P = .87), or discomfort (P = .58) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The data showed that GM was equivalent to SM in open inguinal hernia repair. However, this new mesh still needs to be confirmed in large, multi-center, well-designed randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this article was to compare the outcomes of self-gripping mesh (GM) with sutured mesh (SM) in open inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were taken to compare the outcomes of GM and SM in open inguinal hernia repair. RESULTS: A total of 1,353 patients in 6 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies were reviewed (666 patients in GM group; 687 patients in SM group). The 2 groups did not significantly differ in chronic groin pain (P = .23) or recurrence (P = .59). The operating time was significantly shorter in GM group (P < .00001). There was no significant difference in infection (P = .18), seromas (P = .35), hematomas (P = .87), or discomfort (P = .58) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The data showed that GM was equivalent to SM in open inguinal hernia repair. However, this new mesh still needs to be confirmed in large, multi-center, well-designed randomized controlled trials.
Authors: Merritt Denham; Brandon Johnson; Michelle Leong; Kristine Kuchta; Eliza Conaty; Michael B Ujiki; Woody Denham; Stephen P Haggerty; Zeeshan Butt; JoAnn Carbray; Matt Gitelis; John G Linn Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Daniel G Davila; Melissa C Helm; Irene S Pourladian; Matthew J Frelich; Andrew S Kastenmeier; Jon C Gould; Matthew I Goldblatt Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Matikainen; E Aro; J Vironen; J Kössi; T Hulmi; S Silvasti; I Ilves; M Hertsi; K Mustonen; H Paajanen Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Gernot Köhler; Michael Lechner; Franz Mayer; Ferdinand Köckerling; Rudolf Schrittwieser; René H Fortelny; Daniela Adolf; Klaus Emmanuel Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.352