Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the post-operative adverse effects associated with mosquito net mesh in comparison to commercial hernia mesh for inguinal hernia repair in low income countries

  • Review
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Abdominal wall hernia is a common surgical condition, with more than 20 million estimated to be repaired each year. Mesh repair is the standard for most repairs; however, the mesh material itself may be a barrier to care, the cost prohibitively high for some populations and healthcare systems. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to produce a pooled comparison between the adverse event rate associated with mosquito net mesh and commercial hernia mesh.

Methods

A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Ovid Embase/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched. In addition, the ISRCTN register, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTR Platform and EU Clinical Trials Register were searched.

Results

Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. The RCTs were deemed to have similar sample populations after inspection of their sample parameters. Therefore, the adverse effects were compared individually (reoccurrence, haematoma, seroma, infection, and serous discharge) and pooled. A total of 313 mosquito net meshes were included in the study, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups for pooled adverse effects or individually.

Conclusions

There is not a significant difference between the commercial mesh group and the mosquito net mesh group for pooled [odds ratio 0.93 (0.63, 1.35)] and individual adverse event rates. However, the 95% confidence intervals of these results are still wide. To reduce this uncertainty sample sizes must increase in future studies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kingsnorth AN, Clarke MG, Shillcutt SD (2009) Public health and policy issues of hernia surgery in Africa. World J Surg 33:1188–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, Haynes AB, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Gawande AA (2008) An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet 372:139–144. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60878-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bickler SN, Weiser TG, Kassebaum N, Higashi H, Chang DC, Barendregt JJ, Noormahomed EV, Vos T (2015) Global burden of surgical conditions, 2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26741011. Accessed 24 Sep 2016

  4. Palmqvist E, Larsson K, Anell A, Hjalmarsson C (2013) Prospective study of pain, quality of life and the economic impact of open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 100:1483–1488. doi:10.1002/bjs.9232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Köckerling F, Stechemesser B, Hukauf M, Kuthe A, Schug-Pass C (2015) TEP versus Lichtenstein: which technique is better for the repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernias in men? Surg Endosc 30(8):3304–3313

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bobo Z, Nan W, Qin Q, Tao W, Jianguo L, Xianli H (2014) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing Lichtenstein and totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernioplasty in treatment of inguinal hernias. J Surg Res 192:409–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tongaonkar RR, Reddy BV, Mehta VK, Singh NS, Shivade S (2003) Preliminary multicentric trial of cheap indigenous mosquito-net cloth for tension-free hernia repair. Indian J Surg 65:9–14

    Google Scholar 

  8. Operation Hernia-the program background, volunteering in Africa, (n.d.). http://www.operationhernia.org.uk/what_we_do.php?page=6. Accessed 4 Mar 2017)

  9. Brown CN, Finch JG (2010) Which mesh for hernia repair? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92:272–278. doi:10.1308/003588410X12664192076296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ambroziak A, Szepietowska K, Lubowiecka I (2016) Mechanical properties of mosquito nets in the context of hernia repair. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 19:286–296. doi:10.1080/10255842.2015.1016004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sharma M, Sharma DB, Chandrakar SK, Sharma D (2015) Histopathological comparison of mosquito net with polypropylene mesh for hernia repair: an experimental study in rats. Indian J Surg 77:511–514. doi:10.1007/s12262-013-0904-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilhelm TJ, Freudenberg S, Jonas E, Grobholz R, Post S, Kyamanywa P (2007) Sterilized mosquito net versus commercial mesh for hernia repair. An experimental study in goats in Mbarara/Uganda. Eur Surg Res 39(2007):312–317. doi:10.1159/000104402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN, Moate R, Steer JA (2013) An in vitro study assessing the infection risk of low-cost polyethylene mosquito net compared with commercial hernia prosthetics. J Surg Res 183:e31–e37. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. PRISMA (2009) PRISMA statement and checklist. http://www.prisma-statement.org/Default.aspx. Accessed 1 Dec 2016

  15. Google (2016) Google scholar. https://goo.gl/bMWHV8. Accessed 1 Dec 2016

  16. Mendeley (2016) Mendeley referencing tool. https://goo.gl/OgcFb. Accessed 1 Dec 2016

  17. C. Collaboration, Review Manager 5 (2016) http://community.cochrane.org/tools/review-production-tools/revman-5. Accessed 1 Dec 2016

  18. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Atlman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. C. Collaboration, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (n.d.) http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/table_8_5_a_the_cochrane_collaborations_tool_for_assessing.htm. Accessed 1 Dec 2016

  21. Löfgren J, Nordin P, Ibingira C, Matovu A, Galiwango E, Wladis A (2016) A randomized trial of low-cost mesh in groin hernia repair. N Engl J Med 374:146–153. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1505126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ekdahl T, Löfgren J, Wladis A, Nordin P (2014) Mosquito nets in hernia surgery is an option in low-income countries Interim analysis of a controlled randomized trial shows positive results. Lakartidningen 111:34–35

    Google Scholar 

  23. Darokar A, Bele K, Mulmule R, Qazi R (2016) Study of open inguinal hernia repair by mosquito net mesh versus polypropylene mesh. Int J Res Med Sci 4:126–130. doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20160017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dubey V (2014) Use of sterilised nylon mosquito net mesh in incisional hernias. Int J Pharma Bio Sci 5:246–250

    Google Scholar 

  25. Freudenberg S, Sano D, Ouangré E, Weiss C, Wilhelm TJ (2006) Commercial mesh versus Nylon mosquito net for hernia repair. A randomized double-blind study in Burkina Faso. World J Surg 30:1784–1789. doi:10.1007/s00268-006-0108-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gundre NP, Iyer SP, Subramaniyan P (2012) Prospective randomized controlled study using polyethylene mesh for inguinal hernia meshplasty as a safe and cost-effective alternative to polypropylene mesh. Updates Surg 64:37–42. doi:10.1007/s13304-011-0103-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. CASP (2012) CASP randomised controlled trial tool. http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_40b9ff0bf53840478331915a8ed8b2fb.pdf. Accessed 27 Sep 2016

  28. Tongaonkar RR, Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN (2013) Ten-Year personal experience of using low density polyethylene (LDPE) mesh for inguinal hernia repair. Trop Med Surg 1(5):139. doi:10.4172/2329-9088.1000136

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kiss A, Corona D, Kiss O (2012) The use of mosquito-net cloths as prosthesis in inguinal hernia repair: an experience in southern sudan. Surg Sci 3:155–157. doi:10.4236/ss.2012.33030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clarke AN, Oppong MG, Simmermacher C, Park R, Kurzer K, Vanotoo M, Kingsnorth L (2009) The use of sterilised polyester mosquito net mesh for inguinal hernia repair in Ghana. Hernia 13:155–159. doi:10.1007/s10029-008-0460-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stephenson BM, Kingsnorth AN (2011) Safety and sterilization of mosquito net mesh for humanitarian inguinal hernioplasty. World J Surg. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1176-6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shillcutt SD, Clarke MG, Kingsnorth AN (2010) Cost-effectiveness of groin hernia surgery in the Western Region of Ghana. Arch Surg 145:954–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Löfgren J, Nordin P, Ibringira C, Matovu A, Galiwango E, Wladis A (2016) A randomized trial of low-cost mesh in groin hernia repair. N Engl J Med 374:146–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Queen’s University School of Medicine and Dentistry and Mrs Alison Patterson for proof-reading the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 18 Cloverhill Avenue, Lisburn, BT27 5HW, UK

    T. Patterson

  2. Queen’s University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK

    T. Patterson, P. Currie, S. Patterson, P. Patterson, C. Meek & R. McMaster

Authors
  1. T. Patterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Currie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Patterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Patterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Meek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. McMaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Patterson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest (either financial or non-financial) directly or indirectly related to this research.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Joint first-authorship: T. Patterson and P. Currie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patterson, T., Currie, P., Patterson, S. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the post-operative adverse effects associated with mosquito net mesh in comparison to commercial hernia mesh for inguinal hernia repair in low income countries. Hernia 21, 397–405 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1608-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1608-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation