Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 4/2020

01-08-2020 | Wound Infection | Review

Open mesh vs. suture umbilical hernia repair: systematic review and updated trial sequential meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Authors: A. Aiolfi, M. Cavalli, G. Micheletto, P. G. Bruni, F. Lombardo, A. Morlacchi, G. Bonitta, G. Campanelli, D. Bona

Published in: Hernia | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the updated evidence on safety, effectiveness, and outcomes of mesh versus suture elective umbilical hernia (UH) repair and to explore the timely tendency variations favouring one treatment over another.

Methods

MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were consulted. A systematic review, pairwise meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted.

Results

Six RCTs were included for a total of 742 patients. Overall, 383 (51.6%) underwent mesh, while 359 (48.4%) underwent suture repair. The estimated pooled postoperative recurrence RR was 0.27 (95% CI 0.13–0.53; p < 0.001). The TSA showed a statistically significant timely tendency in favour of mesh repair with a boundary cross curve (Z = 1.96) before reaching the information size. The estimated pooled seroma, haematoma, and wound infection RR were 1.45 (p = 0.368), 0.54 (p = 0.196), and 0.71 (p = 0.375), respectively. The TSA for wound-related complications showed partial, non-significant results.

Conclusions

Elective UH mesh repair seems to be associated with reduced risk of postoperative recurrence compared to simple suture repair with a statistically significant timely trend endorsed by the TSA. Definitive considerations concerning the cumulative effect for seroma, haematoma, and wound infection are premature. Further studies are warranted to endorse these results and deeply investigate the timely tendency variations.
Literature
1.
Kaufmann R, Halm JA, Eker HH et al (2018) Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 391(10123):860–869CrossRef
2.
Shrestha D, Shrestha A, Shrestha B (2019) Open mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 62:62–66CrossRef
3.
Aslani N, Brown CJ (2010) Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 14(5):455–462CrossRef
4.
Bisgaard T, Kaufmann R, Christoffersen MW, Strandfelt P, Gluud LL (2019) Lower risk of recurrence after mesh repair versus non-mesh sutured repair in open umbilical hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Scand J Surg 108(3):187–193CrossRef
5.
Abdel-Baki NA, Bessa SS, Abdel-Razek AH (2007) Comparison of prosthetic mesh repair and tissue repair in the emergency management of incarcerated para-umbilical hernia: a prospective randomized study. Hernia 11:163–167CrossRef
6.
7.
Goossen K, Tenckhoff S, Probst P, Grummich K, Mihaljevic AL, Büchler MW, Diener MK (2018) Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 403(1):119–129CrossRef
8.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928CrossRef
9.
Ng TT, McGory ML, Ko CY, Maggard MA (2006) Meta-analysis in surgery: methods and limitations. Arch Surg 141(11):1125–1130CrossRef
10.
Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C (2009) Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol 38(1):287–298CrossRef
11.
DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188CrossRef
12.
Aiolfi A, Asti E, Rausa E, Bernardi D, Bonitta G, Bonavina L (2018) Trans-gastric ERCP after roux-en-y gastric bypass: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg 28(9): 2836–2843CrossRef
13.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, Chichester, UKCrossRef
14.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRef
15.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558CrossRef
16.
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 20:5–13
17.
R Development Core Team A language and environment for statistical computing. (2015) R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3–900051–07–0
18.
19.
Arroyo A, García P, Pérez F, Andreu J, Candela F, Calpena R (2001) Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 88(10):1321–1323CrossRef
20.
Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen M, Iversen MG, Rosenberg J, Jørgensen LN (2011) A nationwide study on readmission, morbidity, and mortality after umbilical and epigastric hernia repair. Hernia 15(5):541–546CrossRef
21.
Berrevoet F, D'Hont F, Rogiers X, Troisi R, de Hemptinne B (2011) Open intraperitoneal versus retromuscular mesh repair for umbilical hernias less than 3 cm diameter. Am J Surg 201(1):85–90CrossRef
22.
Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC, Davila JA, Li LT, Kao LS, Liang MK (2014) Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 149(5):415–421CrossRef
23.
Winsnes A, Haapamäki MM, Gunnarsson U, Strigård K (2016) Surgical outcome of mesh and suture repair in primary umbilical hernia: postoperative complications and recurrence. Hernia 20(4):509–516CrossRef
24.
Leimu R, Koricheva J (2004) Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology. Proc Biol Sci 271(1551):1961–1966CrossRef
25.
Tunio NA (2017) Hernioplasty: tension free mesh repair versus Mayo’s repair for umbilical hernias. J Pak Med Assoc 67(1):24–26PubMed
26.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Bruni PG, Lombardo F, Perali C, Bonitta G, Bona D (2019) Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 23(3):509–519CrossRef
27.
Polat C, Dervisoglu A, Senyurek G, Bilgin M, Erzurumlu K, Ozkan K (2005) Umbilical hernia repair with the Prolene hernia system. Am J Surg 190(1):61–64CrossRef
28.
Lal KL, Ase LA (2012) A comparative study of anatomical repair versus mesh repair in paraumbilical hernia. Med Channel 18:1–5
29.
Sadiq F, Khurshid N (2013) A comparison between mesh hernioplasty and simple suture repair at Arif Memorial Teaching Hospital Lahore. Pak J Med Heal Sci 7:926–928
30.
Blonk L, Civil YA, Kaufmann R, Ket JCF, van der Velde S (2019) A systematic review on surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias. Hernia 23(5):847–857CrossRef
31.
32.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Morlacchi A, Bruni PG, Campanelli G, Bona D (2019) Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia 23(3):473–484CrossRef
33.
Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J (2008) Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 61(8):763–769CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Open mesh vs. suture umbilical hernia repair: systematic review and updated trial sequential meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Authors
A. Aiolfi
M. Cavalli
G. Micheletto
P. G. Bruni
F. Lombardo
A. Morlacchi
G. Bonitta
G. Campanelli
D. Bona
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Hernia / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02146-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Hernia 4/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Continuation of antithrombotic therapy increases minor bleeding but does not increase the risk other morbidities in open inguinal hernia repair: A propensity score-matched analysis

Original Article

Implementation of the small bites closure of abdominal midline incisions in clinical practice is correlated with a reduction in surgical site infections

Original Article

Open retromuscular versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair for medium-sized defects: where is the value?

Original Article

Revisiting HERQL, the hernia-specific quality-of-life assessment instrument, to extend the clinical applicability for abdominal wall hernias

Original Article

Hospital volume and outcome in inguinal hernia repair: analysis of routine data of 133,449 patients

Original Article

Validation and educational impact study of the NANEP high-fidelity simulation model for open preperitoneal mesh repair of umbilical hernia