Hans Lederhuber1, Franziska Stiede2, Stephan Axer2, Ursula Dahlstrand3. 1. Department of General Surgery, Torsby Hospital, Värmland County Council, Box 502, 68529, Torsby, Sweden. hans.lederhuber@liv.se. 2. Department of General Surgery, Torsby Hospital, Värmland County Council, Box 502, 68529, Torsby, Sweden. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, and Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The issue of mesh fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair is frequently debated and still no conclusive data exist on differences between methods regarding long-term outcome and postoperative complications. The quantity of trials and the simultaneous lack of high-quality evidence raise the question how future trials should be planned. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched, using the filters "randomised clinical trials" and "humans". Trials that compared one method of mesh fixation with another fixation method or with non-fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair were eligible. To be included, the trial was required to have assessed at least one of the following primary outcome parameters: recurrence; surgical site infection; chronic pain; or quality-of-life. RESULTS: Fourteen trials assessing 2161 patients and 2562 hernia repairs were included. Only two trials were rated as low risk for bias. Eight trials evaluated recurrence or surgical site infection; none of these could show significant differences between methods of fixation. Two of 11 trials assessing chronic pain described significant differences between methods of fixation. One of two trials evaluating quality-of-life showed significant differences between fixation methods in certain functions. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence for differences between the assessed mesh fixation techniques is still lacking. From a socioeconomic and ethical point of view, it is necessary that future trials will be properly designed. As small- and medium-sized single-centre trials have proven unable to find answers, register studies or multi-centre studies with an evident focus on methodology and study design are needed in order to answer questions about mesh fixation in inguinal hernia repair.
BACKGROUND: The issue of mesh fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair is frequently debated and still no conclusive data exist on differences between methods regarding long-term outcome and postoperative complications. The quantity of trials and the simultaneous lack of high-quality evidence raise the question how future trials should be planned. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched, using the filters "randomised clinical trials" and "humans". Trials that compared one method of mesh fixation with another fixation method or with non-fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair were eligible. To be included, the trial was required to have assessed at least one of the following primary outcome parameters: recurrence; surgical site infection; chronic pain; or quality-of-life. RESULTS: Fourteen trials assessing 2161 patients and 2562 hernia repairs were included. Only two trials were rated as low risk for bias. Eight trials evaluated recurrence or surgical site infection; none of these could show significant differences between methods of fixation. Two of 11 trials assessing chronic pain described significant differences between methods of fixation. One of two trials evaluating quality-of-life showed significant differences between fixation methods in certain functions. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence for differences between the assessed mesh fixation techniques is still lacking. From a socioeconomic and ethical point of view, it is necessary that future trials will be properly designed. As small- and medium-sized single-centre trials have proven unable to find answers, register studies or multi-centre studies with an evident focus on methodology and study design are needed in order to answer questions about mesh fixation in inguinal hernia repair.
Authors: D G Altman; K F Schulz; D Moher; M Egger; F Davidoff; D Elbourne; P C Gøtzsche; T Lang Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-04-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Amit Kaul; Susan Hutfless; Hamilton Le; Senan A Hamed; Kevin Tymitz; Hien Nguyen; Michael R Marohn Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: H Breivik; P C Borchgrevink; S M Allen; L A Rosseland; L Romundstad; E K Breivik Hals; G Kvarstein; A Stubhaug Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: M Miserez; E Peeters; T Aufenacker; J L Bouillot; G Campanelli; J Conze; R Fortelny; T Heikkinen; L N Jorgensen; J Kukleta; S Morales-Conde; P Nordin; V Schumpelick; S Smedberg; M Smietanski; G Weber; M P Simons Journal: Hernia Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Sebastiano Spampatti; Davide La Regina; Ramon Pini; Francesco Mongelli; Paolo Gaffuri; Iride Porcellini; Andrea Romanzi; Maria Marcantonio Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Maurício Andrade Azevedo; Guilherme Blattner Torres de Oliveira; Carlos Alberto Malheiros; Sergio Roll Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2022-09-09
Authors: H Niebuhr; F Wegner; M Hukauf; M Lechner; R Fortelny; R Bittner; C Schug-Pass; F Köckerling Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 4.584