Department of General Surgery, Pinderfields General Hospital, Wakefield, UK.
Department of General Surgery, Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK.
Hernia. 2019 Jun;23(3):523-539. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01892-1. Epub 2019 Jan 28.
To compare the outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair.
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.
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.
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.
比较开放式修补术与开放式网片修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果。
我们进行了系统评价,并对电子信息源进行了检索,以确定所有观察性研究和随机对照试验(RCT),这些研究调查了开放式修补术与开放式网片修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果。疝复发被视为主要结局指标。次要结局指标包括手术部位感染(SSI)、血肿、血清肿、神经痛、尿潴留、住院时间、恢复正常活动或工作的时间、睾丸萎缩、手术时间和慢性疼痛。应用随机或固定效应模型来计算汇总结局数据。
纳入了 6 项 RCT(共 1480 例患者,1485 例疝)和 4 项观察性研究(共 1564 例患者,1641 例疝)。RCT 的荟萃分析显示,在复发(RD 0.00,95%CI-0.01 至 0.01,P=0.86)、SSI(OR 0.83,95%CI 0.46-1.49,P=0.52)、血肿(OR 1.21,95%CI 0.62-2.38,P=0.57)、血清肿(OR 0.83,95%CI 0.42-1.65,P=0.60)、神经痛(OR 1.05,95%CI 0.29-3.73,P=0.94)、尿潴留(OR 1.44,95%CI 0.64-3.21,P=0.38)、住院时间(MD 0.09,95%CI-0.28 至 0.46,P=0.63)、恢复正常活动或工作的时间(MD 0.88,95%CI-0.90 至 2.66,P=0.33)、睾丸萎缩(RD 0.00,95%CI-0.02 至 0.02,P=1.00)和手术时间(MD 2.69,95%CI-1.75 至 7.14,P=0.62)方面,修补术组与网片修补术组之间没有显著差异。观察性研究的荟萃分析也显示,在复发(RD 0.00,95%CI-0.02 至 0.02,P=0.99)、SSI(OR 0.47,95%CI 0.14-1.62,P=0.23)、血肿(OR 1.07,95%CI 0.45-2.55,P=0.89)、血清肿(OR 0.12,95%CI 0.01-2.27,P=0.16)、神经痛(OR 0.25,95%CI 0.05-1.21,P=0.08)、尿潴留(OR 1.53,95%CI 0.20-11.96,P=0.69)、恢复正常活动或工作的时间(MD 2.13,95%CI-2.18 至 6.44,P=0.33)、睾丸萎缩(RD-0.01,95%CI-0.02 至 0.01,P=0.49)和手术时间(MD-4.76,95%CI-13.23 至 3.71,P=0.27)方面,两组之间也没有显著差异。慢性疼痛的证据尚不确定。可用证据的质量为中等。
我们的结果表明,开放式修补术与开放式网片修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果相当。考虑到腹股沟疝修补术后网片并发症的后果虽然罕见,但可能很严重,开放式修补术为腹股沟疝的治疗提供了一种与开放式网片修补术同等可信的替代方案。需要进一步的研究来调查患者报告的结局,并确定一种更优越的非网片技术。