L Beckers Perletti1, F Spoelders2, Frederik Berrevoet3. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. Frederik.Berrevoet@Ugent.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) includes the surgical reconstruction of the abdominal wall (AW) using different surgical techniques. Although such procedures are usually devoid of complications, the formation of seroma may frequently occur. We performed a systematic review to assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VHR techniques and their impact on seroma formation. METHODS: We included RCTs having seroma formation as primary endpoint. We included patients of both sexes (age > 18). For data synthesis we applied a random-effects model and calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Risk of bias (ROB) and publication bias were evaluated following Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: After database search and article screening, 21 records were included in this review. Ten RCTs compared onlay vs. sublay mesh placement techniques. Pooled analysis showed a significantly higher risk ratio for seroma in the onlay cohort (RR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.86-3.66, I2 = 0, GRADE quality of evidence, moderate). Five RCTs compared laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair vs. open mesh placement. Pooled analysis showed that seroma formation did not differ significantly between groups (RR = 1.91, 95% CI 0.69-5.28, I2 = 66%, GRADE quality of evidence, poor). High ROB was found in all studies and significant publication bias was detected in both meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Compared to sublay ventral hernia repair, the onlay procedure is associated with a significantly higher risk of seroma. No significant differences were observed when laparoscopic VHR was compared with the open surgical procedure. Due to the diversity of surgical techniques reported in included RCTs, it is currently not possible to draw conclusive clinical recommendations. Future studies should be standardized to provide detailed data allowing thorough evaluation of the impact of the evidence on clinical practice.
PURPOSE: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) includes the surgical reconstruction of the abdominal wall (AW) using different surgical techniques. Although such procedures are usually devoid of complications, the formation of seroma may frequently occur. We performed a systematic review to assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VHR techniques and their impact on seroma formation. METHODS: We included RCTs having seroma formation as primary endpoint. We included patients of both sexes (age > 18). For data synthesis we applied a random-effects model and calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Risk of bias (ROB) and publication bias were evaluated following Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: After database search and article screening, 21 records were included in this review. Ten RCTs compared onlay vs. sublay mesh placement techniques. Pooled analysis showed a significantly higher risk ratio for seroma in the onlay cohort (RR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.86-3.66, I2 = 0, GRADE quality of evidence, moderate). Five RCTs compared laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair vs. open mesh placement. Pooled analysis showed that seroma formation did not differ significantly between groups (RR = 1.91, 95% CI 0.69-5.28, I2 = 66%, GRADE quality of evidence, poor). High ROB was found in all studies and significant publication bias was detected in both meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Compared to sublay ventral hernia repair, the onlay procedure is associated with a significantly higher risk of seroma. No significant differences were observed when laparoscopic VHR was compared with the open surgical procedure. Due to the diversity of surgical techniques reported in included RCTs, it is currently not possible to draw conclusive clinical recommendations. Future studies should be standardized to provide detailed data allowing thorough evaluation of the impact of the evidence on clinical practice.
Authors: Gordon Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Elie A Akl; Regina Kunz; Gunn Vist; Jan Brozek; Susan Norris; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Paul Glasziou; Hans DeBeer; Roman Jaeschke; David Rind; Joerg Meerpohl; Philipp Dahm; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-31 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M Ahonen-Siirtola; T Nevala; J Vironen; J Kössi; T Pinta; S Niemeläinen; U Keränen; J Ward; P Vento; J Karvonen; P Ohtonen; J Mäkelä; T Rautio Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18