D A Finch1, V A Misra2, S Hajibandeh3. 1. Department of General Surgery, Pinderfields General Hospital, Wakefield, UK. davidfinch@doctors.org.uk. 2. Department of General Surgery, Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK. 3. Department of General Surgery, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Hernia recurrence was considered as the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures included surgical site infection (SSI), haematoma, seroma, neuralgia, urinary retention, length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activities or work, testicular atrophy, operative time and chronic pain. Random or fixed effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: Six RCTs, enrolling 1480 patients with 1485 hernias, and 4 observational studies, enrolling 1564 patients with 1641 hernias, were included. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.86), SSI (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46-1.49, P = 0.52), haematoma (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62-2.38, P = 0.57), seroma (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.65, P = 0.60), neuralgia (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29-3.73, P = 0.94), urinary retention (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.64-3.21, P = 0.38), length of hospital stay (MD 0.09, 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.46, P = 0.63), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 0.88, 95% CI - 0.90 to 2.66, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02, P = 1.00), and operative time (MD 2.69, 95% CI - 1.75 to 7.14, P = 0.62) between the darn repair and mesh repair groups. Meta-analysis of observational studies also showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.99), SSI (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.14-1.62, P = 0.23), haematoma (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.45-2.55, P = 0.89), seroma (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-2.27, P = 0.16), neuralgia (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05-1.21, P = 0.08), urinary retention (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.20-11.96, P = 0.69), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 2.13, 95% CI - 2.18 to 6.44, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD - 0.01, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.01, P = 0.49), and operative time (MD - 4.76, 95% CI - 13.23 to 3.71, P = 0.27) between the two groups. The evidence was inconclusive for chronic pain. The quality of available evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that open darn repair is comparable with open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Considering that consequences of mesh complications in inguinal hernia repair, albeit rare, can be significant, open darn repair provides an equally credible alternative to open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Further studies are required to investigate patient-reported outcomes and to elicit a superior non-mesh technique.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Hernia recurrence was considered as the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures included surgical site infection (SSI), haematoma, seroma, neuralgia, urinary retention, length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activities or work, testicular atrophy, operative time and chronic pain. Random or fixed effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: Six RCTs, enrolling 1480 patients with 1485 hernias, and 4 observational studies, enrolling 1564 patients with 1641 hernias, were included. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.86), SSI (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46-1.49, P = 0.52), haematoma (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62-2.38, P = 0.57), seroma (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.65, P = 0.60), neuralgia (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29-3.73, P = 0.94), urinary retention (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.64-3.21, P = 0.38), length of hospital stay (MD 0.09, 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.46, P = 0.63), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 0.88, 95% CI - 0.90 to 2.66, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02, P = 1.00), and operative time (MD 2.69, 95% CI - 1.75 to 7.14, P = 0.62) between the darn repair and mesh repair groups. Meta-analysis of observational studies also showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.99), SSI (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.14-1.62, P = 0.23), haematoma (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.45-2.55, P = 0.89), seroma (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-2.27, P = 0.16), neuralgia (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05-1.21, P = 0.08), urinary retention (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.20-11.96, P = 0.69), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 2.13, 95% CI - 2.18 to 6.44, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD - 0.01, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.01, P = 0.49), and operative time (MD - 4.76, 95% CI - 13.23 to 3.71, P = 0.27) between the two groups. The evidence was inconclusive for chronic pain. The quality of available evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that open darn repair is comparable with open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Considering that consequences of mesh complications in inguinal hernia repair, albeit rare, can be significant, open darn repair provides an equally credible alternative to open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Further studies are required to investigate patient-reported outcomes and to elicit a superior non-mesh technique.
Entities:
Keywords:
Darn repair; Inguinal hernia; Mesh repair
Authors: R W Luijendijk; W C Hop; M P van den Tol; D C de Lange; M M Braaksma; J N IJzermans; R U Boelhouwer; B C de Vries; M K Salu; J C Wereldsma; C M Bruijninckx; J Jeekel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: W W Vrijland; M P van den Tol; R W Luijendijk; W C J Hop; J J V Busschbach; D C D de Lange; D van Geldere; A B Rottier; P A Vegt; J N M IJzermans; J Jeekel Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Claudia C Orelio; Coen van Hessen; Francisco Javier Sanchez-Manuel; Theodorus J Aufenacker; Rob Jpm Scholten Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-04-21