Raja Sandesh, Raja Adarsh, Ansari Ziyan, Eman Sara, Bajaj Simran, Ahmed Muhammad, Kumar Uday, Shah Yawar Hussain, Jawahar Sachin, Aftab Faisal, Rajani Deepak, Kumar Satesh, Khatri Mahima
Department of Surgery, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Department of Surgery, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College Lyari, Karachi, Pakistan.
Front Surg. 2024 Feb 9;11:1321325. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1321325. eCollection 2024.
This analysis addresses the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of glue mesh fixation (GMF) compared with tack mesh fixation (TMF) in laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Our meta-analysis incorporates recently conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to enhance the reference for assessing the efficacy and safety of GMF.
PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library were extensively reviewed for articles in the English language performed from inception to May 2023 using the keywords "Glue mesh repair," "Tack mesh repair," "Inguinal Hernia," "Herniorrhaphy," "Laparoscopic," "Mesh Fixation," and "Randomized controlled trials."
In this meta-analysis, we incorporated a total of 20 randomized controlled trials, evaluating each article individually using quality ratings. Compared with TMF, GMF demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of chronic pain [RR: 0.40, (0.23, 0.68)] and pain scores on postoperative day 1 [MD: -1.07, (-1.90, -0.25)]. We also used funnel plots and Egger's regression to test for publication bias.
In summary, this meta-analysis establishes the significance of GMF in reducing chronic pain and postoperative day 1 pain compared with TMF. However, no statistically significant difference was noted between the GMF and TMF groups concerning hematoma, seroma, operation time, recurrence rate, and total complications. Nonetheless, given the small number of cases in this study, the findings must be validated in the future by multicenter, large-sample, high-quality RCTs.
本分析旨在解决腹腔镜疝修补术中胶水网片固定(GMF)与钉合网片固定(TMF)疗效的不确定性。我们的荟萃分析纳入了最近进行的随机对照试验(RCT),以增强评估GMF疗效和安全性的参考依据。
使用关键词“胶水网片修补”、“钉合网片修补”、“腹股沟疝”、“疝修补术”、“腹腔镜”、“网片固定”和“随机对照试验”,对PubMed Central、谷歌学术、科学Direct和Cochrane图书馆从创刊至2023年5月发表的英文文章进行了广泛检索。
在本荟萃分析中,我们共纳入了20项随机对照试验,并使用质量评分对每篇文章进行单独评估。与TMF相比,GMF在慢性疼痛发生率[RR:0.40,(0.23,0.68)]和术后第1天的疼痛评分[MD:-1.07,(-1.90,-0.25)]方面显著降低。我们还使用漏斗图和Egger回归检验发表偏倚。
总之,本荟萃分析证实了GMF与TMF相比在减轻慢性疼痛和术后第1天疼痛方面的重要性。然而,GMF组和TMF组在血肿、血清肿、手术时间、复发率和总并发症方面未观察到统计学上的显著差异。尽管如此,鉴于本研究中的病例数量较少,这些结果未来必须通过多中心、大样本、高质量的RCT进行验证。