T Patterson1,2, P Currie3, S Patterson3, P Patterson3, C Meek3, R McMaster3. 1. , 18 Cloverhill Avenue, Lisburn, BT27 5HW, UK. tpatterson02@qub.ac.uk. 2. Queen's University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK. tpatterson02@qub.ac.uk. 3. Queen's University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Abdominal wall hernia is a common surgical condition, with more than 20 million estimated to be repaired each year. Mesh repair is the standard for most repairs; however, the mesh material itself may be a barrier to care, the cost prohibitively high for some populations and healthcare systems. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to produce a pooled comparison between the adverse event rate associated with mosquito net mesh and commercial hernia mesh. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Ovid Embase/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched. In addition, the ISRCTN register, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTR Platform and EU Clinical Trials Register were searched. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. The RCTs were deemed to have similar sample populations after inspection of their sample parameters. Therefore, the adverse effects were compared individually (reoccurrence, haematoma, seroma, infection, and serous discharge) and pooled. A total of 313 mosquito net meshes were included in the study, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups for pooled adverse effects or individually. CONCLUSIONS: There is not a significant difference between the commercial mesh group and the mosquito net mesh group for pooled [odds ratio 0.93 (0.63, 1.35)] and individual adverse event rates. However, the 95% confidence intervals of these results are still wide. To reduce this uncertainty sample sizes must increase in future studies.
PURPOSE: Abdominal wall hernia is a common surgical condition, with more than 20 million estimated to be repaired each year. Mesh repair is the standard for most repairs; however, the mesh material itself may be a barrier to care, the cost prohibitively high for some populations and healthcare systems. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to produce a pooled comparison between the adverse event rate associated with mosquito net mesh and commercial hernia mesh. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Ovid Embase/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched. In addition, the ISRCTN register, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTR Platform and EU Clinical Trials Register were searched. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. The RCTs were deemed to have similar sample populations after inspection of their sample parameters. Therefore, the adverse effects were compared individually (reoccurrence, haematoma, seroma, infection, and serous discharge) and pooled. A total of 313 mosquito net meshes were included in the study, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups for pooled adverse effects or individually. CONCLUSIONS: There is not a significant difference between the commercial mesh group and the mosquito net mesh group for pooled [odds ratio 0.93 (0.63, 1.35)] and individual adverse event rates. However, the 95% confidence intervals of these results are still wide. To reduce this uncertainty sample sizes must increase in future studies.
Authors: Thomas G Weiser; Scott E Regenbogen; Katherine D Thompson; Alex B Haynes; Stuart R Lipsitz; William R Berry; Atul A Gawande Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321