K Ran1, X Wang1, Y Zhao2. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. 2. Department of Vascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. cqmu-145@foxmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lichtenstein repair (LR), mesh-plug repair (MPR), and prolene hernia system (PHS) are three common open tensionless repair techniques for inguinal hernia (IH); each technique has its supporters and controversies never stop. It is necessary to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy of these three open tensionless repair techniques. METHODS: RCTs comparing at least any two of the three open tensionless repair techniques for IH were searched in online databases. Literature screening and quality assessment were carried out basing on the established inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were carried out using RevMan software 5.3. The primary outcomes were recurrence, chronic pain and time to return to work. Secondary outcomes were inguinal paresthesia, testicular and scrotal problems, hematoma, seroma and wound infection. RESULTS: Twenty-two references on fifteen RCTs involving a total of 3716 hernias were selected for the meta-analysis. In these trials, seven comparing LR and MPR, five comparing LR and PHS, and three comparing LR, MPR and PHS. All primary and secondary outcomes could be pooled analyzed in comparison of MPR and PHS with LR, while only two primary outcomes (recurrence and chronic pain) and one secondary outcome (wound infection) could be pooled analyzed in comparison of MPR with PHS. Results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that MPR and PHS were comparable to LR in all primary and secondary outcomes, and MPR and PHS were comparable in terms of recurrence, chronic pain and wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that MPR and PHS seem comparable to LR in terms of recurrence, chronic pain, time to return to work, inguinal paresthesia, testicular and scrotal problems, hematoma, seroma and wound infection. MPR and PHS seem comparable in terms of recurrence, chronic pain and wound infection.
BACKGROUND: Lichtenstein repair (LR), mesh-plug repair (MPR), and prolenehernia system (PHS) are three common open tensionless repair techniques for inguinal hernia (IH); each technique has its supporters and controversies never stop. It is necessary to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy of these three open tensionless repair techniques. METHODS: RCTs comparing at least any two of the three open tensionless repair techniques for IH were searched in online databases. Literature screening and quality assessment were carried out basing on the established inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were carried out using RevMan software 5.3. The primary outcomes were recurrence, chronic pain and time to return to work. Secondary outcomes were inguinal paresthesia, testicular and scrotal problems, hematoma, seroma and wound infection. RESULTS: Twenty-two references on fifteen RCTs involving a total of 3716 hernias were selected for the meta-analysis. In these trials, seven comparing LR and MPR, five comparing LR and PHS, and three comparing LR, MPR and PHS. All primary and secondary outcomes could be pooled analyzed in comparison of MPR and PHS with LR, while only two primary outcomes (recurrence and chronic pain) and one secondary outcome (wound infection) could be pooled analyzed in comparison of MPR with PHS. Results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that MPR and PHS were comparable to LR in all primary and secondary outcomes, and MPR and PHS were comparable in terms of recurrence, chronic pain and wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that MPR and PHS seem comparable to LR in terms of recurrence, chronic pain, time to return to work, inguinal paresthesia, testicular and scrotal problems, hematoma, seroma and wound infection. MPR and PHS seem comparable in terms of recurrence, chronic pain and wound infection.