Hu Dan, Huang Bin, Gao Lili
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First People's Hospital of Nantong, Nantong, China.
Department of General Surgery, Haimen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Haimen, China.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Sep;29(9):1152-1162. doi: 10.1089/lap.2019.0363. Epub 2019 Aug 1.
There is no consensus on whether lightweight mesh (LWM) is better than heavyweight mesh (HWM) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). This study aims to update the previous reviews and to analyze present randomized controlled studies comparing LWM versus HWM in LIHR systematically. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared LWM with HWM in adults with LIHR. All eligible data of outcomes were quantitatively analyzed using Revman 5.3 software or qualitatively described. The outcomes included chronic pain, moderate-severe chronic pain, recurrence, foreign body sensation, influence on sexual life and male fertility (pain with ejaculation, testicular pain, etc.). We included 12 RCTs that analyzed 3092 hernias. The difference between LWM and HWM groups at any follow-up time was not significant in chronic pain and foreign body sensation. Compared with HWM group, patients in LWM group had a similar risk of postoperative moderate-severe chronic pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up, a slightly increased risk of developing moderate-severe chronic pain at >12 months follow-up (risk ratio [RR] = 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-9.75, = .04), and a higher risk of recurrence rate (RR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.17-4.44, = .02). At long-term follow-up, the influences of LWM and HWM on sexual life and male fertility were comparable. LWMs do not show advantages in chronic pain, foreign body sensation as well as the influence on sexual life and male fertility, and may increase hernia recurrence rates for LIHR. In addition, a higher incremental cost and lower incremental effect of LWMs make conventional HWMs preferred choice for LIHR.
在腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术(LIHR)中,轻质补片(LWM)是否优于重磅补片(HWM)尚无定论。本研究旨在更新以往的综述,并系统分析目前比较LIHR中LWM与HWM的随机对照研究。我们在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆中检索了随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了成人LIHR中LWM与HWM的效果。所有符合条件的结局数据均使用Revman 5.3软件进行定量分析或定性描述。结局包括慢性疼痛、中重度慢性疼痛、复发、异物感、对性生活和男性生育能力的影响(射精疼痛、睾丸疼痛等)。我们纳入了12项RCT,共分析了3092例疝。在慢性疼痛和异物感方面,LWM组和HWM组在任何随访时间的差异均无统计学意义。与HWM组相比,LWM组患者在术后3个月和12个月随访时发生中重度慢性疼痛的风险相似,在随访时间>12个月时发生中重度慢性疼痛的风险略有增加(风险比[RR]=3.20,95%置信区间[CI]1.05-9.75,P=0.04),复发率风险更高(RR=2.28,95%CI 1.17-4.44,P=0.02)。在长期随访中,LWM和HWM对性生活和男性生育能力的影响相当。LWM在慢性疼痛、异物感以及对性生活和男性生育能力的影响方面均未显示出优势,且可能增加LIHR的疝复发率。此外,LWM的增量成本较高且增量效果较低,这使得传统的HWM成为LIHR的首选。