Suppr超能文献

开放腹疝修补术中生物补片与合成补片的比较:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Biologic versus synthetic mesh in open ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo Sergio, Tastaldi Luciano, Mao Rui-Min Diana, Lima Diego Laurentino, Huang Li-Ching, Lu Richard

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.

Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/LTastaldiMD.

出版信息

Surgery. 2023 Apr;173(4):1001-1007. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.12.002. Epub 2023 Jan 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed worldwide, and using mesh is standard of care to decrease recurrence. Biologic meshes are increasingly used to minimize complications associated with synthetic mesh, but with significantly higher cost and unclear efficacy. Until recently, most of the evidence supporting the use of biologic meshes was from retrospective cohorts with high heterogeneity and risk of bias. We aimed to report a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of synthetic and biologic mesh in elective open ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing biologic and synthetic mesh in elective open ventral hernia repairs. The postoperative outcomes were assessed by means of pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 1,090 studies were screened, and 22 were fully reviewed. Four randomized controlled trials and 632 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Fifty-eight percent of patients had contaminated wounds (Wound Classification II-IV). Hernia recurrence (odds ratio 2.75; 95% confidence interval 1.76-4.31; P < .00001; I = 0%) and surgical site infections (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.02-2.29; P = .04; I = 0%) were significantly more common in patients with biologic mesh. The rates of seroma, hematoma, and mesh removal were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

As compared to synthetic mesh, biologic meshes resulted in increased hernia recurrences and surgical site infections. Current evidence supports macroporous, uncoated synthetic mesh as the implant of choice for elective open ventral hernia repair, and its use should be considered even in contaminated cases.

摘要

背景

腹疝修补术是全球最常见的手术之一,使用补片是降低复发率的标准治疗方法。生物补片越来越多地用于减少与合成补片相关的并发症,但成本显著更高且疗效不明确。直到最近,大多数支持使用生物补片的证据来自异质性高且存在偏倚风险的回顾性队列研究。我们旨在报告一项比较择期开放性腹疝修补术中合成补片和生物补片效果的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

方法

对PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行文献检索,以确定比较择期开放性腹疝修补术中生物补片和合成补片的随机对照试验。通过汇总分析和荟萃分析评估术后结果。使用RevMan 5.4进行统计分析。用I统计量评估异质性。

结果

共筛选了1090项研究,其中22项进行了全面审查。荟萃分析纳入了4项随机对照试验和632例患者。58%的患者伤口受到污染(伤口分类II-IV级)。使用生物补片的患者疝复发(比值比2.75;95%置信区间1.76-4.31;P <.00001;I = 0%)和手术部位感染(比值比1.53;95%置信区间1.02-2.29;P =.04;I = 0%)明显更常见。两组血清肿、血肿和补片取出率相似。

结论

与合成补片相比,生物补片导致疝复发和手术部位感染增加。目前的证据支持大孔、无涂层的合成补片作为择期开放性腹疝修补术的首选植入物,即使在污染病例中也应考虑使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验