Mesh versus suture for elective primary umbilical hernia open repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE

Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR.

METHODS

We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%.

RESULTS

2895 studies were screened and 56 were reviewed. 12 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 7 retrospective cohorts were included, comprising 2926 patients in total (47.6% in mesh group and 52.4% in the suture group). Mesh repair showed lower rates of recurrence in the overall analysis (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; P = 0.003; I = 24%) and for hernia defects smaller than 2 cm (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93; P = 0.03; I = 0%). Suture repair showed lower rates of seroma (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.32; P = 0.03; I = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.65; 95%CI 1.12 to 2.43; P = 0.01; I = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSION

The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the mesh repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs.

STUDY REGISTRATION

A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).