Pereira Chirag, Gururaj Shankar
General Surgery, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, GBR.
General Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, IND.
Cureus. 2023 Jan 24;15(1):e34156. doi: 10.7759/cureus.34156. eCollection 2023 Jan.
Incisional hernias are a common problem following major abdominal surgery. There are numerous surgical techniques described in the existing English scientific literature with different planes for mesh placement. The current review aims to compare onlay versus sublay repair in managing incisional hernias. A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Medline to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing onlay versus sublay mesh repair for incisional hernias. We identified six RCTs that included 986 patients, of whom 503 were in the onlay group and 485 were in the sublay group. There was no statistically significant difference in hernia recurrence between the onlay and sublay groups (odds ratio (OR): 1.3 (0.49-3.47), 95% confidence interval (CI), p=0.60). Seroma formation was significantly higher in the onlay group (OR: 2.85 (1.74-4.67), 95% CI, p<0.0001). There were 45 reported cases of surgical site infection (SSI). There was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 1.46 (0.44-4.84), 95% CI, p=0.54). Haematomas were reported in 11 cases, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 2.13 (0.56-8.19), 95% CI, p=0.27). Four RCTs reported the length of the hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference (MD): 0.53 (-0.16-1.22), 95% CI, p=0.13). We failed to draw conclusive clinical recommendations due to the variability in the included RCTs. We recommend well-structured, large-volume RCTs to better compare these two surgical techniques.
切口疝是腹部大手术后常见的问题。现有英文科学文献中描述了许多手术技术,其补片放置平面各不相同。本综述旨在比较在处理切口疝时采用外置法与内置法修补术的效果。我们在Embase、Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和Medline上进行了系统的文献检索,以确定比较切口疝外置法与内置法补片修补术的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们识别出6项RCT,共纳入986例患者,其中503例在外置法组,485例在内置法组。外置法组与内置法组之间的疝复发率无统计学显著差异(优势比(OR):1.3(0.49 - 3.47),95%置信区间(CI),p = 0.60)。外置法组血清肿形成率显著更高(OR:2.85(1.74 - 4.67),95% CI,p < 0.0001)。报告了45例手术部位感染(SSI)病例。两组之间无显著差异(OR:1.46(0.44 - 4.84),95% CI,p = 0.54)。报告了11例血肿病例,两组之间无显著差异(OR:2.13(0.56 - 8.19),95% CI,p = 0.27)。4项RCT报告了住院时间。两组之间无显著差异(平均差(MD):0.53(-0.16 - 1.22),95% CI,p = 0.13)。由于纳入研究的RCT存在变异性,我们未能得出确凿的临床建议。我们建议开展结构良好、大样本量的RCT,以更好地比较这两种手术技术。