Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia

Neil William Scott, Kirsty McCormack, Geoffrey Paul Graham, P M Go, S J Ross, Adrian Maxwell Grant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

191 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequent operation in general surgery. Until recently the standard procedure has been open musculo-aponeurotic repair using sutures under tension to close the defect but 'tension-free' repair using prosthetic mesh is becoming increasingly common in many countries.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review is to evaluate open mesh techniques in comparison with open non-mesh techniques for the surgical repair of groin hernia.

SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched and further trials were sought from the reference lists of reports of known trials. Through the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration authors of identified randomised controlled trials were asked for information on any other trials known to them. There was no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing either a) open mesh with open non-mesh repair of groin hernia or b) open flat mesh repair with plug and mesh repair of groin hernia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each outcome the results were derived using data from the best available source. The majority of data for this review came from individual patient data (IPD) supplied by the trialists. When these were unavailable data came from additional aggregated information or from published trial reports. All trials were analysed using the 'intention to treat' principle.

MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials comparing open mesh with open non-mesh repair were identified. Open mesh methods, on average, took 7-10 minutes less to perform than Shouldice procedures, but took 1-4 minutes longer than other non-mesh methods. There were no clear differences between mesh and non-mesh groups for haematomas, seromas or wound/superficial infections. Three serious operative complications were reported after open mesh repair and three following non-mesh repair. Overall, those in the mesh groups had a shorter length of hospital stay and quicker return to usual activities, but this pattern was not observed for all trials. There was a suggestion that persisting pain was less frequent after mesh repair than after non-mesh repair but this result was dependent on one trial and data were not available for 11 trials. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to persisting numbness. Fewer hernia recurrences were reported after mesh repair (Peto OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51). There were too few data to reliably address differential effects for patients with recurrent, bilateral or femoral hernias. Two trials comparing flat mesh with plug and mesh were identified. There was no clear evidence of differences between the groups.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that the use of open mesh repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of recurrence of between 50% and 75%. Although the trials were heterogeneous there is also some evidence of quicker return to work and of lower rates of persisting pain following mesh repair.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD002197
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Femoral Hernia
Inguinal Hernia
Herniorrhaphy
Groin
Hernia
Length of Stay
Seroma
Recurrence
Pain
Return to Work
Hypesthesia
Wound Infection
Risk Reduction Behavior
Hematoma
Sutures
Language
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases

Keywords

  • Clinical Trials as Topic
  • Hernia, Femoral
  • Hernia, Inguinal
  • Humans
  • Postoperative Complications
  • Recurrence
  • Surgical Mesh

Cite this

Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia. / Scott, Neil William; McCormack, Kirsty; Graham, Geoffrey Paul; Go, P M; Ross, S J; Grant, Adrian Maxwell.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 4, CD002197, 2002.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0459391d079b4a1ab0fd109f6f33ac41,
title = "Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequent operation in general surgery. Until recently the standard procedure has been open musculo-aponeurotic repair using sutures under tension to close the defect but 'tension-free' repair using prosthetic mesh is becoming increasingly common in many countries.OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review is to evaluate open mesh techniques in comparison with open non-mesh techniques for the surgical repair of groin hernia.SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched and further trials were sought from the reference lists of reports of known trials. Through the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration authors of identified randomised controlled trials were asked for information on any other trials known to them. There was no language restriction.SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing either a) open mesh with open non-mesh repair of groin hernia or b) open flat mesh repair with plug and mesh repair of groin hernia.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each outcome the results were derived using data from the best available source. The majority of data for this review came from individual patient data (IPD) supplied by the trialists. When these were unavailable data came from additional aggregated information or from published trial reports. All trials were analysed using the 'intention to treat' principle.MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials comparing open mesh with open non-mesh repair were identified. Open mesh methods, on average, took 7-10 minutes less to perform than Shouldice procedures, but took 1-4 minutes longer than other non-mesh methods. There were no clear differences between mesh and non-mesh groups for haematomas, seromas or wound/superficial infections. Three serious operative complications were reported after open mesh repair and three following non-mesh repair. Overall, those in the mesh groups had a shorter length of hospital stay and quicker return to usual activities, but this pattern was not observed for all trials. There was a suggestion that persisting pain was less frequent after mesh repair than after non-mesh repair but this result was dependent on one trial and data were not available for 11 trials. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to persisting numbness. Fewer hernia recurrences were reported after mesh repair (Peto OR: 0.37, 95{\%} CI: 0.26 to 0.51). There were too few data to reliably address differential effects for patients with recurrent, bilateral or femoral hernias. Two trials comparing flat mesh with plug and mesh were identified. There was no clear evidence of differences between the groups.REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that the use of open mesh repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of recurrence of between 50{\%} and 75{\%}. Although the trials were heterogeneous there is also some evidence of quicker return to work and of lower rates of persisting pain following mesh repair.",
keywords = "Clinical Trials as Topic, Hernia, Femoral, Hernia, Inguinal, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Recurrence, Surgical Mesh",
author = "Scott, {Neil William} and Kirsty McCormack and Graham, {Geoffrey Paul} and Go, {P M} and Ross, {S J} and Grant, {Adrian Maxwell}",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD002197",
language = "English",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia

AU - Scott, Neil William

AU - McCormack, Kirsty

AU - Graham, Geoffrey Paul

AU - Go, P M

AU - Ross, S J

AU - Grant, Adrian Maxwell

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequent operation in general surgery. Until recently the standard procedure has been open musculo-aponeurotic repair using sutures under tension to close the defect but 'tension-free' repair using prosthetic mesh is becoming increasingly common in many countries.OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review is to evaluate open mesh techniques in comparison with open non-mesh techniques for the surgical repair of groin hernia.SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched and further trials were sought from the reference lists of reports of known trials. Through the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration authors of identified randomised controlled trials were asked for information on any other trials known to them. There was no language restriction.SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing either a) open mesh with open non-mesh repair of groin hernia or b) open flat mesh repair with plug and mesh repair of groin hernia.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each outcome the results were derived using data from the best available source. The majority of data for this review came from individual patient data (IPD) supplied by the trialists. When these were unavailable data came from additional aggregated information or from published trial reports. All trials were analysed using the 'intention to treat' principle.MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials comparing open mesh with open non-mesh repair were identified. Open mesh methods, on average, took 7-10 minutes less to perform than Shouldice procedures, but took 1-4 minutes longer than other non-mesh methods. There were no clear differences between mesh and non-mesh groups for haematomas, seromas or wound/superficial infections. Three serious operative complications were reported after open mesh repair and three following non-mesh repair. Overall, those in the mesh groups had a shorter length of hospital stay and quicker return to usual activities, but this pattern was not observed for all trials. There was a suggestion that persisting pain was less frequent after mesh repair than after non-mesh repair but this result was dependent on one trial and data were not available for 11 trials. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to persisting numbness. Fewer hernia recurrences were reported after mesh repair (Peto OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51). There were too few data to reliably address differential effects for patients with recurrent, bilateral or femoral hernias. Two trials comparing flat mesh with plug and mesh were identified. There was no clear evidence of differences between the groups.REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that the use of open mesh repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of recurrence of between 50% and 75%. Although the trials were heterogeneous there is also some evidence of quicker return to work and of lower rates of persisting pain following mesh repair.

AB - BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequent operation in general surgery. Until recently the standard procedure has been open musculo-aponeurotic repair using sutures under tension to close the defect but 'tension-free' repair using prosthetic mesh is becoming increasingly common in many countries.OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review is to evaluate open mesh techniques in comparison with open non-mesh techniques for the surgical repair of groin hernia.SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched and further trials were sought from the reference lists of reports of known trials. Through the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration authors of identified randomised controlled trials were asked for information on any other trials known to them. There was no language restriction.SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing either a) open mesh with open non-mesh repair of groin hernia or b) open flat mesh repair with plug and mesh repair of groin hernia.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each outcome the results were derived using data from the best available source. The majority of data for this review came from individual patient data (IPD) supplied by the trialists. When these were unavailable data came from additional aggregated information or from published trial reports. All trials were analysed using the 'intention to treat' principle.MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials comparing open mesh with open non-mesh repair were identified. Open mesh methods, on average, took 7-10 minutes less to perform than Shouldice procedures, but took 1-4 minutes longer than other non-mesh methods. There were no clear differences between mesh and non-mesh groups for haematomas, seromas or wound/superficial infections. Three serious operative complications were reported after open mesh repair and three following non-mesh repair. Overall, those in the mesh groups had a shorter length of hospital stay and quicker return to usual activities, but this pattern was not observed for all trials. There was a suggestion that persisting pain was less frequent after mesh repair than after non-mesh repair but this result was dependent on one trial and data were not available for 11 trials. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to persisting numbness. Fewer hernia recurrences were reported after mesh repair (Peto OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51). There were too few data to reliably address differential effects for patients with recurrent, bilateral or femoral hernias. Two trials comparing flat mesh with plug and mesh were identified. There was no clear evidence of differences between the groups.REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that the use of open mesh repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of recurrence of between 50% and 75%. Although the trials were heterogeneous there is also some evidence of quicker return to work and of lower rates of persisting pain following mesh repair.

KW - Clinical Trials as Topic

KW - Hernia, Femoral

KW - Hernia, Inguinal

KW - Humans

KW - Postoperative Complications

KW - Recurrence

KW - Surgical Mesh

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD002197

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD002197

M3 - Article

C2 - 12519568

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1469-493X

IS - 4

M1 - CD002197

ER -