Ahmed Usamah, Rosenberg Jacob, Baker Jason Joe
Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, DK-2730, Denmark.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025 Apr 21;410(1):132. doi: 10.1007/s00423-025-03671-2.
This systematic review aimed to investigate differences in chronic pain and foreign body sensation based on mesh placement, with recurrence as a secondary outcome.
The review was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024592114), and searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase Ovid, and Cochrane CENTRAL on October 3rd, 2024. Studies were included if they compared mesh placements, categorized as onlay, retromuscular, preperitoneal, or intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM), in primary ventral hernia repairs in adults. Chronic pain (≥ 6 months post-surgery) and foreign body sensation were the primary outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were included, while incisional hernias alone and animal studies were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool for RCTs. Due to significant heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible, and a narrative synthesis was provided.
A total of 6,562 records were screened, of which nine cohort studies and one RCT were included. Studies were heterogeneous and many did not aim to assess chronic pain as the primary outcome. Two studies reported significantly lower chronic pain rates with retromuscular mesh placement, but data pooling was not possible. Foreign body sensation could not be assessed because the only study reporting on this did not have extractable data.
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to favor one mesh placement over another for chronic pain or foreign body sensation. While crude rates suggest that retromuscular and preperitoneal placements may result in less chronic pain than onlay and IPOM, the evidence remains very uncertain due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Further research is warranted.
本系统评价旨在研究基于补片放置的慢性疼痛和异物感差异,将复发作为次要结局。
该评价已在PROSPERO注册(ID:CRD42024592114),并于2024年10月3日在MEDLINE(PubMed)、Embase Ovid和Cochrane CENTRAL进行检索。纳入比较成人原发性腹疝修补术中不同补片放置方式(分类为外置、肌后、腹膜前或腹腔内置入补片(IPOM))的研究。慢性疼痛(术后≥6个月)和异物感为主要结局。纳入随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究,排除仅涉及切口疝的研究和动物研究。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估观察性研究的偏倚风险,使用Cochrane偏倚风险2(RoB2)工具评估RCT的偏倚风险。由于存在显著异质性,无法进行荟萃分析,因此提供了叙述性综述。
共筛选6562条记录,其中纳入9项队列研究和1项RCT。研究具有异质性,许多研究并非以评估慢性疼痛作为主要结局。两项研究报告肌后补片放置的慢性疼痛发生率显著较低,但无法合并数据。由于唯一报告异物感的研究没有可提取的数据,因此无法评估异物感。
目前,尚无足够证据支持一种补片放置方式优于另一种方式用于慢性疼痛或异物感。虽然粗略率表明肌后和腹膜前放置方式可能比外置和IPOM导致的慢性疼痛更少,但由于显著的临床和方法学异质性,证据仍然非常不确定。有必要进行进一步研究。