Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE More than 350,000 ventral hernias are repaired in the United States annually, of which 75% are primary ventral hernias (eg, umbilical or epigastric hernias). Despite the volume, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of sutures vs mesh for primary ventral hernia repairs. OBJECTIVE To compare suture vs mesh repairs for 3 outcomes: hernia recurrence, surgical site infection (SSI), and seromas. DATA SOURCES Randomized controlled trials, case-control, and cohort studies were identified from OVID, PubMed, and reference lists from January 1, 1980, through June 1, 2012. STUDY SELECTION English-language studies with adult patients were eligible for review if there was mention of both suture and mesh techniques used during elective repair of a primary ventral hernia. Two study authors independently reviewed the 1492 articles originally identified and selected 9 for analysis. The Downs and Black 26-item checklist was used to critically assess the risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION Year of publication, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, number of patients, follow-up duration, use of preoperative antibiotics, size of hernias repaired, age, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, repair techniques, incidence of hernia recurrence, seroma, and SSI. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Three separate univariate meta-analyses for each end point followed by a multivariate meta-analysis were performed. Across all 9 studies, there were 637 mesh repairs and 1145 suture repairs. The pooled mesh repairs demonstrated a 2.7% recurrence rate, 7.7% seroma rate, and 7.3% SSI rate The pooled suture repairs demonstrated an 8.2% recurrence rate, 3.8% seroma rate, and 6.6% SSI rate. On the basis of results from the multivariate meta-analysis, recurrences (log odds ratio , −1.04; 95% CI, −1.58 to −0.52) were more common with suture repair, whereas seromas (0.84; 0.27-1.41) and SSIs (0.65; 0.12-1.18) were more common with mesh repair. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Mesh repair has a small reduction in recurrence rates compared with suture repairs for primary ventral hernias, but an increased risk of seroma and SSI was observed. Further high-quality studies are necessary to determine whether suture or mesh repair leads to improved outcomes for primary ventral hernias.

[1]  N. Black,et al.  The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. , 1998, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[2]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[3]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[4]  N. Scott,et al.  Open Mesh versus non‐Mesh for groin hernia repair , 2001 .

[5]  A. Arroyo,et al.  Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults , 2001, The British journal of surgery.

[6]  K. Boffard,et al.  Penetrating lung hernia with pulmonary evisceration: case report. , 2001, The Journal of trauma.

[7]  B. Becker,et al.  How meta-analysis increases statistical power. , 2003, Psychological methods.

[8]  N. Patil,et al.  Umbilical hernia in adults , 2003, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[9]  C. Mixter A cost–utility analysis of treatment options for inguinal hernia in 1,513,008 adult patients , 2004, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[10]  J. Halm,et al.  Long-term follow-up after umbilical hernia repair: are there risk factors for recurrence after simple and mesh repair , 2005, Hernia.

[11]  A. Woodward,et al.  Retrospective comparison of mesh and sutured repair for adult umbilical hernias , 2005, Hernia.

[12]  C. Polat,et al.  Umbilical hernia repair with the prolene hernia system. , 2005, American journal of surgery.

[13]  M. Şahin,et al.  Which repair in umbilical hernia of adults: primary or mesh? , 2006, International surgery.

[14]  G. Sarosi,et al.  Predictors of recurrence in veteran patients with umbilical hernia: single center experience. , 2006, American journal of surgery.

[15]  R. Kreis,et al.  Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  E. Gianetta,et al.  Mesh versus direct suture for the repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Ten-year experience. , 2009, Annali italiani di chirurgia.

[17]  G. Campanelli,et al.  Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias , 2009, Hernia.

[18]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[19]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Multivariate meta‐analysis: the effect of ignoring within‐study correlation , 2009 .

[20]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  C. Brown,et al.  Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2010, Hernia.

[22]  S. Phillips,et al.  Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research , 2012, Hernia.

[23]  A Gasparrini,et al.  Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations , 2012, Statistics in medicine.