Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Suture Versus Mesh Repair in Primary and Incisional Ventral Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Today, ventral hernia repair is predominantly performed with meshes. There is no meta-analysis of high quality evidence that compares the results of suture to mesh repair. The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare patient centred outcomes of suture versus mesh repair.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL (inception to 06/2014). Furthermore a hand search was performed. RCTs comparing suture versus mesh repair in primary and incisional ventral hernia repair were included. Data on patient characteristics, interventions and results were extracted in standardized tables. Risk of bias was assessed with the cochrane risk of bias tool. Results of studies were pooled with a meta-analysis. All steps were performed by two reviewers. Discrepancies were discussed until a consensus.

Results

The search in the databases resulted in 1560 hits. After screening, 10 randomized controlled trials including 1215 patients satisfied all inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was moderate to high. The relative risk for recurrence was 0.36 [95% CI (0.27, 0.49); I 2 = 0; heterogeneity p = 0.70]. Other complications did not differ significantly. Results for chronic pain were heterogeneous across studies.

Conclusion

Mesh repair reduces the number of recurrences significantly. In patients without recurrence mesh repairs seem to be associated with a risk of chronic pain especially if the mesh is fixed sublay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(3):CD007781

    Google Scholar 

  2. Itani KM, Hur K, Kim LT et al (2010) Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 145(4):322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdel-Baki NA, Bessa SS, Abdel-Razek AH (2007) Comparison of prosthetic mesh repair and tissue repair in the emergency management of incarcerated para-umbilical hernia: a prospective randomized study. Hernia 11(2):163–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Venclauskas L, Maleckas A, Kiudelis M (2010) One-year follow-up after incisional hernia treatment: results of a prospective randomized study. Hernia 14:575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. DeMaria EJ, Moss JM, Sugerman HJ (2000) Laparoscopic intraperitoneal polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) prosthetic patch repair of ventral hernia. Prospective comparison to open prefascial polypropylene mesh repair. Surg Endosc 14(4):326–329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. LeBlanc KA, Booth WV (1993) Laparoscopic repair of incisional abdominal hernias using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: preliminary findings. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3(1):39–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. The cochrane collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed Mar 2011

  9. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A et al (2013) Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 66(9):973–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y et al (2009) Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 339:b4012

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ammar SA (2010) Management of complicated umbilical hernias in cirrhotic patients using permanent mesh: randomized clinical trial. Hernia 14(1):35–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Arroyo A, Garcia P, Perez F et al (2001) Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 88(10):1321–1323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240(4):578–583

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Korenkov M, Sauerland S, Arndt M et al (2002) Randomized clinical trial of suture repair, polypropylene mesh or autodermal hernioplasty for incisional hernia. Br J Surg 89(1):50–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Polat C, Dervisoglu A, Senyurek G et al (2005) Umbilical hernia repair with the prolene hernia system. Am J Surg 190(1):61–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Charbon JA et al (2007) Repair of giant midline abdominal wall hernias: “components separation technique” versus prosthetic repair : interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 31(4):756–763. doi:10.1007/s00268-006-0502-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343(6):392–398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weber G, Baracs J, Horvath OP (2010) [“Onlay” mesh provides significantly better results than “sublay” reconstruction. Prospective randomized multicenter study of abdominal wall reconstruction with sutures only, or with surgical mesh–results of a five-years follow-up]. Magy Seb 63(5):302–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lal K, Laghari ZH, Laghari AA et al (2012) A comparative study of anatomical repair versus mesh repair in paraumbilical hernia. Med Channel 19(2):110–113

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC et al (2014) Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 149(5):415–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. den Hartog D, Dur AH, Tuinebreijer WE et al (2008) Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(3):CD006438

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aslani N, Brown CJ (2010) Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 14(5):455–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Timmermans L, de Goede B, van Dijk SM et al (2014) Meta-analysis of sublay versus onlay mesh repair in incisional hernia surgery. Am J Surg 207(6):980–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sajid MS, Parampalli U, McFall MR (2013) A meta-analysis comparing tacker mesh fixation with suture mesh fixation in laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. Hernia 17(2):159–166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

Tim Mathes: Idea for the review, literature search, selection of literature, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, preparation of meta-analysis, writing of manuscript. Maren Walgenbach: Selection of literature, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, review of manuscript. Robert Siegel: Clinical expertise, interpretation of data, revision of manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health-School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 33, 51109, Cologne, Germany

    Tim Mathes & Maren Walgenbach

  2. Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin-Buch and Faculty of Health-Witten/Herdecke University, HELIOS Klinikum, Schwanebecker Chaussee 50, 13125, Berlin, Germany

    Robert Siegel

Authors
  1. Tim Mathes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maren Walgenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Mathes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Nothing to declare.

Disclosure

None

Funding

There was no funding for this systematic review.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mathes, T., Walgenbach, M. & Siegel, R. Suture Versus Mesh Repair in Primary and Incisional Ventral Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World J Surg 40, 826–835 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3311-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3311-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation