Ismail Ammar, Abushouk Abdelrahman Ibrahim, Elmaraezy Ahmed, Abdelkarim Ahmed Helal, Shehata Mohamed, Abozaid Mohamed, Ahmed Hussien, Negida Ahmed
Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; NovaMed Medical Research Association, Cairo, Egypt; Medical Research Group of Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.
NovaMed Medical Research Association, Cairo, Egypt; Medical Research Group of Egypt, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Surgery. 2017 Jul;162(1):18-36. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.12.028. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of Lichenstein hernia repair using either self-gripping mesh or techniques of sutured mesh fixation.
We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for all clinical trials and observational studies that compared self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh fixation in Lichtenstein hernia repair. Combined outcomes were pooled as odds ratios or mean differences in a fixed-effect model, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software for Windows.
Twelve randomized, controlled trials and 5 cohort studies (n = 3,722 patients) were included in the final analysis. The two groups, using self-gripping mesh or sutured mesh fixation, did not differ significantly in terms of recurrence rate (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.18-2.44; P = .54) or postoperative chronic groin pain (odds ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.54-1.05; P = .09). The operative time was less in the self-gripping mesh group (mean difference = -7.85, 95% confidence interval -9.94 to -5.76; P < .0001). For safety analysis, there were comparable risks between self-gripping mesh and sutured mesh fixation groups in terms of postoperative infection (odds ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.53-1.23; P = .32), postoperative hematoma (odds ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.7-1.36; P = .9), and urinary retention (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.18-2.44; P = .54).
Data from our analysis did not favor either of the two fixation techniques over the other in terms of recurrence or postoperative chronic groin pain. Decreased operative time in the self-gripping mesh group cannot justify a recommendation for its routine use. Longer follow-up studies are needed to compare the risk of long-term recurrence for both meshes.
我们进行了这项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较使用自固定补片或缝合补片固定技术的李金斯坦疝修补术的结果。
我们在PubMed、Cochrane CENTRAL、Scopus、Embase和Web of Science中检索了所有比较自固定补片与缝合补片固定在李金斯坦疝修补术中应用的临床试验和观察性研究。使用适用于Windows的综合荟萃分析软件,将合并结果汇总为固定效应模型中的比值比或均值差。
最终分析纳入了12项随机对照试验和5项队列研究(n = 3722例患者)。使用自固定补片或缝合补片固定的两组在复发率(比值比 = 0.66,95%置信区间0.18 - 2.44;P = 0.54)或术后慢性腹股沟疼痛(比值比 = 0.75,95%置信区间0.54 - 1.05;P = 0.09)方面无显著差异。自固定补片组的手术时间较短(均值差 = -7.85,95%置信区间 -9.94至 -5.76;P < 0.0001)。在安全性分析中,自固定补片组和缝合补片固定组在术后感染(比值比 = 0.81,95%置信区间0.53 - 1.23;P = 0.32)、术后血肿(比值比 = 0.97,95%置信区间0.7 - 1.36;P = 0.9)和尿潴留(比值比 = 0.66,95%置信区间0.18 -